So, /his/, I want to get more familiar with macro economics as I've had a few university classes in it, but I really learned nothing about it.
Where does one start learning economic theory? Should I instead fuck off to /lit/ or /sci/?
>>879113
Why don't you e-mail some of your professors with this question? Probably a better source than here.
>>879141
Because it's been years.
No one in macro cares about Marx or the Austrians.
Just buy a Macro Textbook.
For short run, Mankiw.
For long run, Charles Jones.
Williamson if you are not afraid of math.
Mankiw otherwise.
You start with a textbook, like any subject.
Your graphic is shit. Political economy is not opposed to market economy, that makes no sense. Political economy is a field, a market economy is a type of economy.
Marx isn't as bad as praxeology.
Empirics are not really optional, so to represent that as a methodological choice is stupid.
Viewing macroeconomics as competing "schools" is pretty outdated. It is much more homogeneous than it once was. Competing theories? Yes. But competing schools of thought? Not really.
>>879263
Since someone will bring it up:
If you consider market monetarism and post-Keynesianism to be in competition with the mainstream, maybe the argument could be made for competing "schools."
In reality, most of the folks working in those "schools" share a common language with mainstream macro, and shit it up in some other ways.
If someone is good, they are taken seriously in the mainstream regardless of their "school," which is why I claim schools no longer meaningfully exist.
e.g. Good folks from the "heterodox" that mainstreamers take seriously: Scott Sumner (MMT), Sam Bowles (PK).
e.g. Bad: that guy who shills for Bernie (PK)
>>879113
The Chicago School aren't empiricists.
Marxists aren't praxeologists. (Praxeology and Praxis are false friends).
Keynesianism isn't political economy.
Political economy and economics are separate disciplines. Most political economists stand for the abolition of economies (they critique economies).
>>879113
what is the basic difference between austrian school and chicago school?
>>879529
The Chicago School believes external reality is relevant to testing specific instances of their general idealist model of marginalism as a utility substitute.
Austrians reject external reality and substitute reasoning from first principles (praxeology).
>>879517
I think the idea is that marxians and Austrians are both heterodoxy. But then there's the right two panels, and while neo-classical synthesis involves keynsian macro, the micro is neoclassical, not chicago school.
>>879598
>Austrians reject external reality and substitute reasoning from first principles (praxeology).
I don't know anything about economics but that sounds really retarded.
>>879598
Is there anything in between the austrian and Chicago school, I like some of the Austrian schools policies but don't believe in praxeology
>>879680
You mean in terms of the Austrian's normative propositions? No: they fail basic tests.
>>879281
>Scott Sumner (MMT)
Sumner would not be amused with this.
>>879113
/biz/ [spoiler]or not 4chan at all[/spoiler]
>>879779
Fair but some would associate him in some sense. Again, no one outs him in that box in reality, but for the sake of explaining why schools are a silly idea I think it works as an example.
If we are tlaking ideas rather than people, NGDP targeting is associated to some extent with MMT, but it is accepted, considered, debated in the "mainstream."
Good ideas make their way into "establishment macro," even when associated with some movement, so it is fair to say schools are an outdated notion.
Likewise, Sam Bowles has done work with norm adoption and the like that, though associated with the PK name, is accepted, considered, debated in "establishment" circles (though I guess norm adoption is more micro at most levels).
