>>794934
Shit posting trolls. Fuck off Austrian scum.
>>794947
>Austrian scum
Am I missing something here?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
>>794966
Based Al
>>795000
No, seriously, what.
>>794934
the jews
Shit monetary policy.
>>795010
So there is a major school of political economy called Austrian economics. They posit that external reality does not provide a test for economics (ie: they deny that economics is observational). They have strong opinions on gold, and the badness of governments.
They have a massive shitposting army of uneducated undergraduates who like to make claims about the Great Depression that are not grounded in documentary work.
>>795030
Ah, thanks, that clears it up nicely.
>>794934
Capitalism
>>795030
As opposed to your failed marxist totalitarian states, capitalist countries work. Go to hell, austrian school ftw.
>>795288
>capitalist countries work.
This is an empirical claim.
>austrian school ftw.
So much for praxeology.
>>795196
This is my problem with leftists. The look at an issue within the system and without any kind of forethought or researching what actually caused the crisis they simply just brand it as 'capitalism.'
>>794934
15 years of paleoconservative "do nothing" economics
>>795329
You're right
A better term that he should have used was "improperly regulated capitalism", because improperly regulated capitalism is unsustainable.
>>795329
You have to admit that Black Friday wouldn't have happened if the United States had been a palace economy.
>>795360
>palace economy.
The oikos took the entirety of their product to a Minoan priestess caste to distribute?
>>795000
You're fucking idiot. Monetarism and Austrian School economics are not the same thing.
>>795427
Oh I'm sorry that I don't keep track of who is a member of your tiny sect and who isn't.
>>795427
>Austrian School
is fundamentalist monetarism, observed by only a tiny fraction of right-wing hipsters for whom libertarianism is just too mainstream
>>795440
I'm not a Monetarist or an Austrian School thinker, but to describe either as a "tiny sect", particularly Monetarism, which has been mainstream economic thought since the '80s to the Great Recession is beyond ludicrous.
>>795502
>Austrian School
>is fundamentalist monetarism
Bullshit, there are enormous incompatibilities. Monetarism is based on the idea that you control the economy via the money supply. Austrian's don't think you should control the money supply at all.
>>795541
>Bullshit, there are enormous incompatibilities.
According to their acolytes maybe, but to everyone else the Austrians are simply stating that the monetarists aren't taking their core neoliberal principles and carrying them to their logical conclusions in a dogmatic matter immune to facts or empirical evidence
>>795559
Great argument, anon. So you are resolving the core discrepaencies between the very foundation of Monetarism and Austrian economics how exactly other than blathering on about "acolytes" and the "logical conclusions" of something you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of?
Monetarists believe in controlling the economy via the money supply, that is the one key fundamental point of Monetarism. Austrian economists don't think the government should have control over the money supply at all.
Have you got an answer to that other than talking smack?
>>795596
>Have you got an answer to that other than talking smack?
I talk smack because I know the core of Austrian economics is Praxeology, which in a nutshell is the ideological equivalent of saying "fuck math and fuck empirical observation, truth in nature can be determined by making shit up and then believing the shit out of it."
You can cloak it in pretentious bullshit like 'self evident axioms" but I prefer calling these things for what they actually are: Neoliberalism turned into a secular religion, and I know that nothing I say or do is going to convince a zealot that everything he has devoted his life to is a marketing gimmick for gold peddlers and ammunition salesmen.
>>795637
>I talk smack because I know the core of Austrian economics is Praxeology, which in a nutshell is the ideological equivalent of saying "fuck math and fuck empirical observation, truth in nature can be determined by making shit up and then believing the shit out of it."
That's because Austrian School economics is a load of old nonsense. That doesn't make it the same thing as Monetarism, which certainly doesn't reject math etc.
buying stocks are margin with a combination of other things
>>795698
>hat's because Austrian School economics is a load of old nonsense. That doesn't make it the same thing as Monetarism, which certainly doesn't reject math etc.
I didn't say it was the same thing, I said it was monetarism stripped of all its mathematical models, which are replaced with an ideological structure which essentially turns neoliberalism from something you pragmatically adhere to because its the best solution for the economy, into a secular religion where its primary appeals are moral, rather than pragmatic and factual.
Austrian economics is a counterfeit of monetarism
>>795771
Well not really, because as I have pointed out, twice, there is a fundamental discrepancy, a huge one, one that lies right at the heart of the whole point of Monetarism that makes it different from Austrian School economics.
Your argument is as retarded as the right wing extremists that equate good, solid Keynesian economics and Marxism.
>>795798
And yet there are some who would make the argument that Marxism, at least orthodox Marxism, is precisely the same thing: take the same basic principles, crank them up to 11, and then justify them with its own distinct ideological model.
I thought the rise of Donald Trump was demonstrable proof that political ideology doesn't matter nearly as much as people think it does?
>>795798
But of course. Keynsianism is entirely illegitimate.
>>795822
>And yet there are some who would make the argument that Marxism, at least orthodox Marxism, is precisely the same thing: take the same basic principles, crank them up to 11, and then justify them with its own distinct ideological model.
Precisely the same thing as what? Keynesian economics? I already called the people that say that extremists in the very post you replied to.
As for Trump to need to take discussion of him to /pol/. He has no serious relation to a discussion of economics. I'm not entirely clear he could spell the word.
>>795829
My personal opinion, Keynesian economics and Monetarism both have a lot to offer.
Marxism and Austrian School economics are both batshit crazy, more alike in their end game than you might think and completely ideologically driven with little regard for reality.
What do you have against basic Keynesianism, the idea that governments should save money in the good times and spend money in the bad times? That is pretty much common sense.
>>795848
Normativity?
>>795831
>Precisely the same thing as what? Keynesian economics? I already called the people that say that extremists in the very post you replied to.
No, I mean precisely the same dynamic.
Keynesian economics is the belief that markets are fundamentally good but need government correction. Marxism carries that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: arguing that its pointless to try and correct markets and that the government should take over all economic activity. They're different because Keynesianism is based on a rational mathematical model while Orthodox Marxism is based on ideology.
Monetarism is that markets are better off left to their own devices but need marginal tweaks, particularly in the form of monetary policy. Austrian economics carries that line of thinking to its logical conclusion by arguing that all government involvement in the economy is bad and that the world would be better off completely run by private interests. They're different because Monetarism is based on a rational mathematical model while Austrian economics is based on ideology.
>As for Trump
I'm not a /pol/tard, but consider for a moment how ideologically nebulous his candidacy has been, and how little effect the other conservatives attacks have been on what his core principles are. People don't care that he has none.
>>794934
Capitalism
Consumer goods revolution of the 1920s caused a boom of production, but stuff like cars and refrigerators don't need to be immediately replaced once every family has one. Production began faltering in 1927 but stocks continued rising. People invested stupidly with all of their savings and taking loans to invest. Banks also invested everybody's money, so when the stock market crashed, suddenly everybody's savings was gone. And of course nobody was going to be buying anything without any money, so the economy got worse, and factory workers had to be laid off.
In the Midwest people turned up the soil and left it exposed to wind with crap farming practices. The demand of WWI caused a boom in wheat production, and when prices fell after the war, farmers tried staying afloat by producing even more, which lowered prices further. The land was pulverized and then abandoned when drought hit. Long droughts are normal in the Midwest but the farmers hadn't experienced it yet because most of them had arrived within the last 20 to 40 years. With a bunch of top soil removed and dirt laying exposed to the wind, huge dust storms began tearing up the Midwest until the whole region was virtually a desert.
>>795349
>because improperly regulated capitalism is unsustainable.
And also the necessary condition that every form of capitalism develops into.
>>795877
>Midwest
Sorry, not quite sure why I'm using this term, since it doesn't include Oklahoma, which was the epicenter of the Dust Bowl.
>>795870
>Keynesian economics is the belief that markets are fundamentally good but need government correction. Marxism carries that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: arguing that its pointless to try and correct markets and that the government should take over all economic activity.
That's not even true when you look at the supposed end game of Marxism, which is complete abolition of the state and money and the formation of an anarchy.
Nor is it remotely to true to say that because Keynesianism supports the claim the government should interfere with markets the logical conclusion of it is that government should take over all markets, that is just pure unadulterated slippery slope bullshit. You could just as easily say because Keynesianism supports free markets the logical conclusion of Keynesianism is Anarcho-Capitalism, which would be just as stupid.
>Monetarism is that markets are better off left to their own devices but need marginal tweaks, particularly in the form of monetary policy. Austrian economics carries that line of thinking to its logical conclusion by arguing that all government involvement in the economy is bad and that the world would be better off completely run by private interests.
That is just more slippery slope nonsense, Monetarism clearly supports government control of the money supply, Austrian economics, doesn't. There is a clear dividing line that you can't simply over-ride by saying "y has elements of x therefore the logical conclusion of y is x", sorry but that is just stupid.
>>795848
>the idea that governments should save money in the good times and spend money in the bad times? That is pretty much common sense.
The government helping out the economy in bad times almost always hurts the economy in the long run since government help is artificial economic stimulus.
>B-but the long run don't matter!
>>795951
>That's not even true when you look at the supposed end game of Marxism, which is complete abolition of the state and money and the formation of an anarchy.
Ideological eschatology, equally untenable as the free market anarchistic eschatology that Austrians predict.
In practice Orthodox Marxists utilized a command economy where all economic activity was managed by government bureaucrats.
>You could just as easily say because Keynesianism supports free markets the logical conclusion of Keynesianism is Anarcho-Capitalism, which would be just as stupid.
But they do, at least according to Orthodox Marxists, just as Austrians assert that Monetarists support socialism. It's extremists accusing the pragmatic center of ideological promiscuity.
>That is just more slippery slope nonsense,
And I still say that you're overemphasizing ideological differences like they're at all that important. In practice people fall into broad political categories, with ideological differences being mostly spurious and confined to niche interest groups. An Austrian may not like it but at the end of the day he'll hold his nose and vote Republican just as readily as a neocon, just like a Green will hold their nose and vote Democrat. The dynamic obviously changes in parliamentary systems which basically allows the political center to build a coalition and monopolize the field but you still get those broad categories which are not defined according to a single ideological structure.
>>795977
>The government helping out the economy in bad times almost always hurts the economy in the long run since government help is artificial economic stimulus.
That is entirely unproven.
>>795977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal
>>796018
>Ideological eschatology, equally untenable as the free market anarchistic eschatology that Austrians predict.
>In practice Orthodox Marxists utilized a command economy where all economic activity was managed by government bureaucrats.
I agree.
>But they do, at least according to Orthodox Marxists, just as Austrians assert that Monetarists support socialism. It's extremists accusing the pragmatic center of ideological promiscuity.
I agree. And randomly making baseless accusations against the pragmatic centre is just what YOU are doing.
>And I still say that you're overemphasizing ideological differences like they're at all that important. In practice people fall into broad political categories, with ideological differences being mostly spurious and confined to niche interest groups. An Austrian may not like it but at the end of the day he'll hold his nose and vote Republican just as readily as a neocon, just like a Green will hold their nose and vote Democrat. The dynamic obviously changes in parliamentary systems which basically allows the political center to build a coalition and monopolize the field but you still get those broad categories which are not defined according to a single ideological structure.
I'm sorry but I'm not American, I have no interest in you name dropping American political factions into the discussion as if it has any relevance to the study of economics.
>>796044
>I agree.
We're basically splitting hairs at this point.
>And randomly making baseless accusations against the pragmatic centre is just what YOU are doing.
*I* was playing devil's advocate. I was showing how ideological zealots of both extremes attack the center.
>I'm sorry but I'm not American, I have no interest in you name dropping American political factions into the discussion as if it has any relevance to the study of economics.
Which is why I added that final sentence about political structures in parliamentary systems, keeping in mind that the left-right paradigm was first invented in France.
And it does matter because scale matters. When the overwhelming bulk of economists are either salt water (Keynesian) or fresh water (Monetarist) economists, it behooves us to keep in mind just how niche some of these beliefs (like Austrian economics) actually are.
>>796083
>We're basically splitting hairs at this point.
Fair enough, I agree again.
>
And it does matter because scale matters. When the overwhelming bulk of economists are either salt water (Keynesian) or fresh water (Monetarist) economists, it behooves us to keep in mind just how niche some of these beliefs (like Austrian economics) actually are.
Well, I don't know if you are the original anon I was having a discussion with, such is the nature of anonymous Japanese tentacle pron board, but I, personally, entered this discussion arguing against anons happily declaring Monetarism and Austrian School economics were the same thing.
>>796140
>happily declaring Monetarism and Austrian School economics were the same thing.
Only in the sense that they are the same core principles (a generalized trust in private markets to self regulate) expressing themselves in a different way. I'm speaking in terms of broad demographics, not ideological specifics. I find that when we divorce these abstracts from concrete demographics, it can greatly distort our perception of political systems, particularly when those distortions are deliberately invoked in order to build up niche beliefs into something larger than what they really are. It's something that Austrians and Marxists are quite fond of doing.
>>795831
>trump has a degree on economics
>can't spell the word economics
I bet you feel so smart after that remark
>>796424
>can't argue the point, only make personal attacks
