What school of economics does /biz/ follow?
>>1055727
The buy high, sell low and sucking cock school of economics of course.
Austrian, of course. Is there any other?
>>1055759
Isn't Austrian economics dismissed in academia?
ACADEMIA
>>1055761
Yeah, Marxism and Keynesianism is the norm in academia.
Sadly, the shit has poured out into our government. Explains the mess doesn't, it?
Also, check this out lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
>>1055767
The PAE are probably not what you think. “I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that Ec 10 presents itself as politically neutral, presents itself as a science, but really espouses a conservative political agenda and the ideas of this professor, who is a former Reagan advisor, and who is unabashedly Republican." They think the current education of economics is a close-minded indoctrination system with mathematics that is nothing but a plausible ideology-driven reductionism. They also aim to incorporate interdisciplinary dialogue (assumable psychology and sociology from my observation) in order to explain increasingly complexity of the world with increasing variables such as gender, class, instinct and etc. They also criticize a lot of conservative assumptions as well as anything they consider dogmas. In another word, if you get to know them better, you might not like them.
>>1055761
Austrian economics is universally rejected, mainly because it rejects empirical studies, has been demonstrated to be incredibly flawed repeatedly, and is founded almost purely in moral and logically fallacious arguments. Even the fucking Behavioral economists have a better track record lol
>>1055759
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
read this austrian
>>1055767
>>1056119
>empiricism not necessary
>proven legitimate through pure reason
I am a pure math/econ graduate and you made me cringe, pal.
>>1056134
If yu are talking about Macro, there is usually two mainstream camps, like beaviourists vs EMH, monetary vs keynsian etc. Outside that you have dozens of branches of batshit economic theories, that each hold maybe just a grain of truth- austrian, marxist, etc.
>>1055767
Name me the schools that teach Marx in depth in a business or economic course in America. Marx if he is actually touched upon is usually only in critical theory or philosophy.
>>1055844
There's noting wrong with pure reason. Austrianism and Marxism is actually pretty similar in that manner. Marx's method of approximation to reality involves 2 stages:
STAGE 1:
Marx's reproduction schemes form the starting-point of his entire analysis
1) the capitalist mode of production exists in an isolated state (foreign trade is ignored)
2) that society consists of capitalists and workers alone (abstract from all 'third persons' in the course of the analysis)
3) that commodities exchange at value; i.e. credit is ignored
4) that the value of money is assumed constant
With those fictitious assumptions, you achieve a certain distance from empirical reality, even while the latter remains the target of explanation.
STAGE 2:
The initial stage of the cognitive process is followed by a second stage. Any set of simplifying assumptions will go together with a subsequent process of correction that takes account of the elements of actual reality that were disregarded initially. Each of the several fictitious, simplifying assumptions is subsequently modified.
The best economist to ever live is still Thorstein Veblen. "The Theory of Business Enterprise" explains an evolutionary approach towards microeconomics and macroeconomis. It touched on reserve capacity, markup pricing, productivity, and aggregate demand in 1904.
Reserve capacity and markup pricing provide the required foundations for microeconomics. Markup pricing is the core of price and profit-wage determination, and reserve capacity is the essence of production and cost theory.
With respect to macroeconomics, a sensible evolutionary macroeconomics explains the process of the determination of output, employment, and price level as well as economic growth (progress) and the business cycle. The contributions of aggregate demand, productivity, and the business cycle offer the structure for such a framework. Output and employment as well as economic growth (progress) are related to the actual and expected levels of aggregate demand. Price level is explained by aggregating markup prices across all corporations: the monopoly sector. Aggregate demand and productivity also have radical implications in that they increase the reserve army of labor if they are sabotaged by the capitalists.
>>1056146
>There's noting wrong with pure reason
of course there is, there can often be 2 perfectly valid explanation about an economic event that could both be true, unless empirically tested.
Take for example stagflation during the 70s:
1. was it an oil shock?
2. or did people start to rationally expect inflation whenever higher unemployment was on the rise, causing the polciy to become useless
both are from a reasoning standpoint perfectly valid.
>>1056142
yeah i was talking about macro
>there is usually two mainstream camps, like beaviourists vs EMH, monetary vs keynsian etc. Outside that you have dozens of branches of batshit economic theories, that each hold maybe just a grain of truth- austrian, marxist, etc.
thanks im barly into babies first econ class and thus far have only talked about the federal reserve and obama's "spearheaded the fight against the recession" and then nothing but definitions and no theories and different views points, im thinking that wont even come in this course so thanks for letting me know, i can study those schools of thought on my own now
>>1056181
while most of these arent really complete "schools" its a start
>>1056176
Pure reason is necessary to understand what's really going on that cannot be seen. Empiricism dismisses anything which cannot be empirically observed as pure metaphysics. Mainstream economists attempt to explain everything in terms of price fluctuations since that's all which can be observed but they miss the hidden reality of what's going on bellow prices. Since there is a lot of variables which simply are not available for empirical investigation one needs to resort to a theoretical approach to understanding concrete reality.
Pure empiricism is weaker than pure reason since people can take the same data set and come to radically different conclusions. Data has no meaning in itself, meaning is the result of interpretation.
>>1056185
nice chart, thanks bro
>tfw being exposed to more ideas on /biz/ then an actual college level macro econ course
>>1056192
>Mainstream economists attempt to explain everything in terms of price fluctuations
No they dont, the main theme of people like Scott Sumner is that you never reason from a change in price, but what caused that change in price. You seem to have a misguided view of what mainstream actually believes.
>Empiricism dismisses anything which cannot be empirically observed as pure metaphysics
example?
Also i am not arguing for pure empiricism, or the 1950s way of keynsianis. I am argueing for chicago schools; Reason-prediction-empirical evidence for it. Its is how the majority of economic theories are formed.
>>1055727
Austrian school.
>>1056202
I mean most of them treat price in and of itself as the central category of significance since it's the only signal people/organizations can actually see and act based upon. Price is treated as the central category of economics because it is an easy to handle empirical category. Their entire theory of value is tautological and tries to explain the category of price in and of itself simply in terms of the relations between actual prices.
>m-muh free market will fix it!
Keynesian economics? son, thats not economics, thats garbage
>>1055761
>>1055767
Marxism isn't respected in academic circles besides anything other than his analysis of basic economic interactions and values. Nobody uses it as a overriding ideological priority.
A mix of Keynesianism (one of the closest to the truth) ad neo-liberalism (as we're operating in a market economy with these assumptions) are used in main stream academia. Despite being almost the antithesis of each other, you use them both where applicable.
By limiting yourself to one "true" (Zazik will shout : "Ideology!") school, you'll never get the true answer.
If I was talking about communism, i'd envoke Hayek and Freidman (big names in Austrian) for their take on information-price (although i could invoke Adam Smith, a LEFT-libertarian) to get the same answer (that markets should set prices)
IF I wanted to talk about the marshall plan, or other big stimulus progects, i'd talk about Keynesianism and demand stimulus taking in some of the criticisms of the opponents.
If you restrict yourself to one ideology, trying your hardest to prove it's success, whilst ignoring the lessons and evidence of other ideologies (or other economists with no explicit school) then you'll be leading yourself down a dark track, when you want to be above looking at the track from a bird's eye's view, so that you see what economic theories work well in certain places, and why.
There's no single answer to this question and i'm glad because then there's more to learn rather than saying : "Marx/Smith/Hume was right, thus they must be wrong."
>There's noting wrong with pure reason.
gtfo rationalist. Everyone besides obscure philosophy students who love Kant too much accept that evidence has a vital role in theories. The reason for denying evidence is that our sense perceptions are fallable. Whilst we never overcome this drawback, it applies even more to our rationality alone. Therefore, you claiming we only need reason is false.
>>1056236
I agree in that you have to have a diverse range of options, but those options are always just tools and not an end in themselves. Economists too often fail to identify what their explicit goal is with the policy they put forward, and the people who pick up on it don't understand what the policy will accomplish. I don't like these free market guys because they push it just because a free market seems cool. I study water policy in California and the mainstream wants water markets (specifically ones like in Australia), and the reason for that is... water markets are cool or something. It's like people don't want to recognize the outcomes of policy they just want their policy to win. It's politicking without any kind of goal and it's basically "flailing" as Zizek might say rather than working toward some kind of gain for whoever you represent.
I understand some of the people who push free market since they will obviously benefit from it (usually big pre-existing corporate or private interests who will be able to snatch up resources), but the small fry (who are usually the majority) who want it barely seem to understand what it will actually do for them and will probably just be frustrated when "the system" isn't designed with their interests in mind.
I agree with everything that Milton Friedman says.
I started with Nassim Taleb. Yuo can't kno nuffin about nuffin. You can't even kno that you can't kno nuffin.
>>1056236
I think the 20th century has shown us that ideology is for suckers.
>>1055727
If anybody replies to this thread with Austrian then just roll your eyes and laugh.
>>1055844
>logically fallacious arguments.
such as?
>Austrian economics
The Austrial school can't deal with the formation of monopolies
muh free market doesn't fix everything
Prove it wrong.
>>1056627
Monopolies actually require state intervention to prop them up. Next.
>>1056655
monopoly: linguistically to mean a market with one major producer.
in economic theory: A company which holds at least 25% of the market.
None of these things necessarily needs government to exist. If you're saying that monopolies are inefficient (which they are) and because of that, they won't survive, then they will survive with the inefficiency as their's no real competition to stop them doing so.
>>1057155
Earlier use of the term 'monopoly' actually meant businesses that collude with the government to decrease competition, through ways such as increasing the barrier to entry with use of added regulatory stipulations.
>>1055844
The classical economic system (Laissez Faire) survived alot longer than keynesianism/market interventionalism has, without nearly as much boom and busts - plus by the time the Great Depression happened Central Banking was everywhere and it played it's role leading up to the collapse
>>1057155
>necessarily needs government to exist.
Wrong. The existence of markets presupposes government provision of law and order to facilitate contracts. Next.
>>1055767
>Marxism
>in economics
At MOST a couple of his words on labor, and that will probably be only within the context of history of economic thought
>>1057313
Well unless you're talking about some pre-state of nature situation then, yes you need laws to facilitate contracts. That just shows that a true free market needs atleast basic regulations. That doesn't strengthen your claim that all monopolies stem from gov interference.
>>1057313
Also your dismissiveness is telling about your lack of thought and or confidence of that statement.
>>1055727
There is an interesting thread about this on /his/, originally some fedora complaining about Adam Smith, it has flourished into a deeper discussion with a low incidence of shitposting.
Here is my shitpost.
>>>/his/596796
tl;dr every school of economics raises some good points
It is probably productive to study each one as part of your "10000 hours", just to make sure you don't miss any important details. It is up to you to determine how relevant ideas are, for example which market inefficiencies apply to a particular company in real life.
If I absolutely had to choose only 1 school I would go with monetarism because Friedman wasn't a "free market fanatic" at all, he seemed to embrace criticism and kind of straddled the line between Keynesianism and Austrian/Neoclassical economics.
>>1055761
>academia
I remember hearing the amazing stories from my anthropology profs about how Milton Friedman flew over Chile in a jet bought for him by Ronald Reagan, parachuted into the capital, and raged hard throughout the city, indiscriminately snapping the necks of every Chilean woman and child to cross his path of mayhem. Friedman's evil rampage prevented the nascent communist grassroots movement, which was almost as popular with the Chilean people as it was with American humanities professors, from reaching fruition. This was a tragedy of epic proportions because the command and control economy was about to usher in a new golden age of economic and sociopolitical utopia. While Friedman was finishing ripping the beating hearts out of the chests of old women and eating them as he quoted passages from Free to Choose, the Chilean people learned to never question the capitalist overlords from Chicago. Legends of the shock doctrine, the massacre of the innocents at the hands of Friedman, spread throughout Latin America to American campuses. When news of the story broke among sociology and gender studies departments there was a collective wail of morning and gnashing of teeth. The critical literary theorists had been unrelenting in their support of the burgeoning Soviet Union at the turn of the century, and they saw what wonders it had worked firsthand for the people of Russia. They felt that they had failed their Chilean brothers. Friedman eventually returned to Chicago from Chile, to return to his Hyde Park throne which was a living chair made from the bodies of welfare recipients, whom were forced to bear their weight of the Libertarian death machine day and night lest their families face the libertarian wrath that had been unleashed in Chile. Now Friedman is lionized by a coalition of Neo nazis, Jewish industrialists, and the religious right, to continue to keep our poor brothers and sisters downtrodden and controlled. Friedman can never die. He is always watching.
And waiting.
>take 300 level (junior) macro econ course
>learn fuck all from it but the solo model of growth and banks not commuting to inflation targets
??????????
>>1057659
>capitalist overlords from chicago
>highest sales taxes in nation
>overrun by welfare niggers
good one fgt
>>1057659
Fine faggotry, anon! I'm impressed.
What do you all think of Irving Fisher's theory of debt deflation?
My main focus in economics is on understanding the banking system, I think it's pretty neat.
>>1057561
>fedora complaining about Adam Smith
>literally every single point he made was right
>>1057585
no, you was saying that monopolies only come about because of gov intervention. I agree that markets can't exist truly without government
>>1055727
Austrian economics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j61dWtJrsgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=667&v=fl9i0zXDVGs
>>1057585
Governments are just a participant in the larger marketplace. Of course markets can exist without government.
>>1055761
>praxeology
>>1059062
Incorrect. Markets presuppose laws, which presuppose government and a monopoly of legitimate use of force.
>>1059051
Actually, I didn't say that monopolies come about because of governments at all. You need to learn to read. The more appropriate observation is that whatever the source of a monopoly is, it can only be sustained through government intervention because monopolies are by their nature inefficient.
>>1055727
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxKV5uVyrdc
>>1055727
Friedman is my personal mentor.
All hail the coin jew
>That feelio when Libertarian minarchist
How fucked am I?
>>1055727
>Pokemon: Choose Your Jew Edition
>>1059398
I wish I was a Jew you'd have guaranteed success from birth.
>>1059391
sasha grey level
>>1059414
;_; what about Objectivism?
>>1059416
even worse,dont tell anybody or you will be laughed at, seriosuly
>>1059419
I already am, what's so wrong with it?
>>1056473
Friedman was right about a lot of things but glosses over many others
His theory of the Great Depression being due to reductions in the money supply doesn't hold up as prices fell
So steeply the real level of money balances increased.
He seems to think that the fact government action has create many monopolies means that we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation, or that any attempt to correct market externalities is bound to fail but doesn't explain why
When your listening to ideologues like Friedman or Krugman take what they say with a grain of salt and accept that whilst that may be very intelligent men or women and may be right about some things they're likely wrong about many others
>>1056655
Friedman pls, the fact that state intervention has artificially created some monopolies does not mean that all anti-monopoly legislation is wrong, the reasoning there is retarded
>>1059056
Real economists read academic publications.
Crackpot austrian conspiritards watch youtube videos.
>>1058104
I think Irving's theory is great at explaining the great depression when considered alongside the reductions in both consumer spending following the crash and the US govs reduction in spending.
Quantitative Easing is kinda sketchy but I think it has avoided deflation in the developed world that would have turned the post 2008 recession into a much deeper depression
IMHO economics needs to greatly improve its knowledge and consideration of how finance works, it's vital to fully understanding the mechanics of business cycles
>>1059370
>>1059370
>monopolies can only be sustained through government intervention because they're inefficient.
Nigga what the fuck are barriers to entry, predatory pricing and oligopolistic markets, there are a whole range of reasons why inefficient monopolies can stay in business.
If the EU hadn't subsidised the shit out of Airbus in its early days what would there be to stop Boeing having a monopoly on airliner production? Basically fuck all.
>>1059517
I think he might be referring to X-inefficiency, which is still an inefficiency that is allowed to occur, as opposed to one that is inherent.
>>1059527
That's kind of besides the point. If there are massive barriers to entry for a market, I.e. Really high economies of scale relative to the size of the market, there no reason why a monopoly could not be very X-inefficient and still not be displaced by competition
>>1059534
Yeah exactly. I didn't make it clear but I agree with you.
>>1059370
>The more appropriate observation is that whatever the source of a monopoly is, it can only be sustained through government intervention because monopolies are by their nature inefficient.
Monopolies are very efficient at generating profit and that's all that really matters. Forms of monopolies emerge because of a desire of groups to enlarge their profits.
Monopoly prices can be maintained for a long while by syndicates while "competition" continues with advertising (further rising the costs of entry) and the members differentiate themselves with their brands for a slice of those monopoly prices.
Capital concentration doesn't necessarily mean just one company gaining total control of a sector for itself and eliminating all competition. Companies can benefit from "competition" as long as they can leverage their market power to enlarge their profits.
An oligarchy eventually emerges as a small group covertly gains control over all the total supply/control of capital.
The buy high, sell low and sucking cock school of economics of course.
>>1059577
If you guys want a current example of this look at the current wage fixing scandal in the tech industry, the 'Techtopus'.
tl:dr Georgre Lucas sells Pixar to Steve Jobs and they agree to not poach employees from each other in order to keep wages low. This agreement continues for decades and grows to include Apple, Google, EBay, Adobe, Intel, and others.
>>1059675
Is that not illegal under anti-collusion and anti-trust legislation? I get that often agreements are tacit and unspoken in a lot of oligopolistic markets but surely if there was any proof of actively collusion between these companies that would be illegal?
>>1059691
It is illegal. That's why there is an ongoing trial and investigation. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
My point was that corporations can act together without merging in order to gain a monopoly. They were able to maximize profits without creating value.
>>1059691
You can read more here:
https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/
https://pando.com/2016/01/05/white-slaver-awakens-how-george-lucas-suppressed-employees-wages-while-becoming-multibillionaire/e8d0faa906e1b33d1439749e6d749ed9202768a3/
Took a basic micro and macroeconomics class for fun.
Micro is just classical economics as far as I can tell. Basics of supply and demand and pricing, and the effect of markets running their course over time. Talks about how regulation can sometimes hurt business, but is sometimes "worth it" depending on circumstances and implementation.
Macro is Keynesian + a little Friedman, and how the government in the US controls the supply of money through interest rates and the fed.
>>1059705
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
>>1055767
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
ayyyyyy
