Can someone explain what mainstream economists think of economics in one lesson? I saw it insulted in econjobrumours and a quote by paul samuelson.
>>570443
lots of "educated" guessing based on oversimplified models that make blatantly untrue assumptions.
t. econ major
>>570443
This book is mainstream (and good).
I approve. Of course there were other who also tried to teach people about economy. Make it easy to understand. Especially in countries that had no rich history of free market.
I applaud their effort.
>>570448
This
t.econ student
>>570448
Found the Keynesian.
>>570448
Sounds like all economics.
>>570443
This book entirely changed my thinking on economics and politics
>>570448
He wrecks your model in his book, wastrel.
>austrian economics
Tell me when it actually contributes something practical besides predicting false-bubbles and being scared of "muh Federal Reserve Boogeyman".
>>570536
No economic school has ever been practical.
To be fair with the Austrians, they are the only ones to admit it and outright say that they won't give you constructionist solutions to make you wealthy.
>>570553
Well so far they've been good at predicting financial crises. Keynesian would tell you it's all good and then change his opinion... after the collapse.
Also both schools have different opinions about the government action during the crisis.
>Austrian school
Literally economic postmodernism.
>>570553
>To be fair with the Austrians, they are the only ones to admit it and outright say that they won't give you constructionist solutions to make you wealthy.
Austrians destroyed their credibility in the Great Depression.
It's a testament to the quality of their propaganda machine and sheer stubbornness that they've managed to persist for so long.
>>570835
Because they predicted it and criticized the actions of the American government that led to it? And then Hoover's and FDR's policy which prolonged it?
>>570448
t. commie
>>570536
They have the best cycle theory.
>>570932
>hayek explains the bussiness cycle
>sraffa destroys his explanation
>hayek retires from economics forever
>best cycle theory
>>570895
Both of them were predicting recessions, it was the fact that the Great Depression dragged on for so long that lead to people abandoning the Austrians in favor of the Keynesians.
http://www.skidelskyr.com/site/article/interpreting-the-great-depression-hayek-versus-keynes/
>>570895
>they predicted it
As a professor i had used to say, for every two economic crises orthodox economics predicts none, and austrians/marxists predict ten.
>>570956
>Trusting an ally of Gramsci
>>570996
kek. Heard similar from my own. What a world.
>>571007
>prove the austrian bussiness cycle is objectively flawed
>it doesn't count because gramsci is your friend
nice argument
>>571015
I think it's originally from samuelson.
>>571020
And why is it flawed?
>>571025
Here are the links to the discussion, see for yourself:
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223735?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223821?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223822?&Search=yes&searchText=sraffa&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsraffa%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26ar%3Don%26sd%3D1932%26ed%3D1932%26la%3D%26jo%3Deconomic%2Bjournal%26Search%3DSearch&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=6&returnArticleService=showFullText&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>>571036
Can't you explain it yourself?
>>571084
There's a ton of critiques hayek was unable to answer and the first paper is only 11 pages so you should just read it, but the strongest point is that hayek's assumptions lead to multiple interest rates (and equilibria), and without a natural interest rate the cycle theory falls apart. You can read the paper for free by registering to jstor and adding it to your shelf if that's your problem.
>>571209
But he only had like what 50 years of career ahead of him? That's nothing.
>>571209
He shifted pretty heavily to philosophy after getting his ass kicked by sraffa though.
>>571232
>So how'd he win the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 then?
Well, let's take a look to his works prior to the nobel:
>"The Transmission of the Ideals of Economic Freedom," (1951)
>John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage (1951)
>The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952)
>The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology (1952)
>Capitalism and the Historians (1954)
>The Political Ideal of the Rule of Law (1955)
>The Constitution of Liberty (1960)
>Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967)
>A Tiger by the Tail (1972)
>Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy (1973)
Do they sound like economic theory works or like economic philosophy works to you?
>>571251
Interesting that you conveniently left out anything before 1950.
>Monetary Nationalism and International Stability (1937)
>Profits, Interest & Investment (1939)
>The Pure Theory of Capital (1941)
And who's to say he didn't include some economic theory in those books, or write them in articles or papers? He was an avid contributor to journals and such as far as I know.
>>571266
I didn't left them out. If you are going to take his works from that period the argument of "he only had like what 50 years of career ahead of him" doesn't make much sense, on top of being extremely obscure and uninfluential books, therefore having little to do with the nobel.
From wikipedia (yeah, it's a shit source, but it's the same thing you'll find anywhere else):
>Hayek never produced the book-length treatment of "the dynamics of capital" that he had promised in the Pure Theory of Capital. After 1941, he continued to publish works on the economics of information, political philosophy, the theory of law, and psychology, but seldom on macroeconomics. At the University of Chicago, Hayek was not part of the economics department and did not influence the rebirth of neoclassical theory which took place there (see Chicago school of economics). When, in 1974, he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal, the latter complained about being paired with an "ideologue". Milton Friedman declared himself "an enormous admirer of Hayek, but not for his economics. I think Prices and Production is a very flawed book. I think his [Pure Theory of Capital] is unreadable. On the other hand, The Road to Serfdom is one of the great books of our time."
Don't feel too bad though, sraffa destroyed neoclassical economists (see the cambridge capital controversy) and marxian economists (see his critique of marxian value) too.
>>571313
Eh, I don't know. I'm not knowledgeable enough on either Hayek or his arguments (for and against) to understand. But if Friedman didn't like his economics work I guess I'd concede that he wasn't that great.
>>571375
That's a pretty dumb way to judge economic theories anon.
>>571391
I don't have the time to read his entire bibliography and the assorted other readings for/against his arguments. Hayek hardly ever comes up in my life, and most experts today don't use a lot of what he proposed, so why bother?
Not wanting to be ignorant, but not wanting to waste my time tbqh.
>>571409
Fair enough.
>>570448
>oversimplified
Only in undergrad classes. Overspecified on the other hand....
t. econ PhD student
>>570443
I listened to this on audiobook a few days ago. It's good. It is unapologetically in favor of the Austrian school of economics. Don't expect a moderate viewpoint.
>>570932
But with the existence and availability of credit and speculation, there is always going to be a severe boom and bust, depending on
1) how severe the attraction of capital is
2) how much the drain on the money of the society is going to continue, by speculators not trying to lose on their 'long', sometimes hypothecated, investments
You know whats funny, is that in the 19th century J.S.Mill said both of those things regarding the influence of credit on market fluctuations.
>>572027
>But with the existence and availability of credit and speculation, there is always going to be a severe boom and bust
No. The cycle happens (only one of the reasons) because the central bank lowers interest rates to levels lower than those that would have been reached by the free-market. The easy availability of credit gives banks an "ok" signal to loan to higher risk people, generating a brief and unsustainable boom period.
>>570448
That's pretty much basic economy, what it's supposed to teach you.
>>570458
most economists don't refer to keynesian econ as keynesian econ, just econ
the same for good heterodox economics. it simply becomes economics
>>572274
That's exactly what I said.
In this case, the boom happens because of high interest rates however, because of the increased demand for loans. The creditors have to raise the interest rates, like in the case of sub-prime mortgages, for the large amount of speculation.
>>572006
OP here. The reason I even ask is that it seems to reduce everything to such common sense that it is beyond reproach. If anything, it seems to reduce economics to a load of trivialities. The book seems to acknowledge this when it gives the entire lesson within the first two pages.
I'm fairly certain that varoufakis is talking Keynesian shilling in the below video.
https://youtu.be/YZNwdcESn90
>>572855
I think you are mistaken. The boom happens because of easy credit / low interest rates. Its the central bank that was the main factor in the case of subprime mortgages, not the demand for loans.
Easy credit for risky loans was what planted the seed for the crisis. The trigger was the rise in interest rates.
>>574386
this, high interest rates encourage saving, not spending.
>>571251
>Nobel prize in economics
Revisionism
>>570956
>Sraffa
Literally who? Why is /his/ so obsessed with obscure marxist authors?
>>575290
Because we do political economy here, where Sraffa is very well known.
You might also want to try I I Rubin.
>>575305
Tell me again why people still believe in the LTV in 2016?
>>575323
>still believe in
It explains intersectoral price tendencies, 7 year and long run OCC related price collapses, crises and the long run tendency for the rate of profit to decline. It explains proletarianisation and the expansion of the commodity form.
It provides a tool kit for dismantling the value form from production outwards.
Try Harry Cleaver "Reading Capital Politically" introduction.
>>570835
Keynesianism caused the Great Depression.
>>570835
>Austrians destroyed their credibility in the Great Depression.
It actually made their arguments stronger, mate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft3aRtH5FuA
>explain what people who study a subject for a living think of a book that claims to provide a solid understanding in one lesson, one book
They probably think that their subject warrants further study and that it is more complicated than a single book can convey to the layman.
What would physicists think of physics in one lesson?
Epidemiology in one lesson
Classic literature in one lesson
Chemistry in one lesson
>>575323
I can think of no reason not to believe in it other than people are scared of it since one guy used it to come to "dangerous" political conclusions.
>>578628
>Austrians
>References to empirical test
>>570978
is that chart meant as a joke?
>>573101
>The reason I even ask is that it seems to reduce everything to such common sense that it is beyond reproach.
I agree that this approach is trite and usually if any book advertises itself this way, it's a red flag. However, the book is worth reading and is surprisingly prescient for being written in the 40's or 50's. It's good if you are looking for some core economics material without overwhelming yourself with excessively specialized content. I'm very much an economics layman and found it valuable, but also understand that I'm reading a perspective on a subjective topic regardless of the author's attitude.
>>570443
Good book OP. Don't listen to the critics. After all, these are the same people who got the US in the last three recessions and is steering us right into another one.
>>580868
>Don't listen to the critics. After all, these are the same people who got the US in the last three recessions
The US has been run by Marxist political economists?
