What is your favorite economist ?
Foucault and his power economics.
>>7930672
He wasn't an economist.
He just was a philosopher
>>7930678
I think that he is an economist and my own opinion is sufficient to me, thanks.
FRIEDMAN
R
I
E
D
M
A
N
>>7930682
Ok thanks
Hayek is objectively the best economist
>>7930678
He was not a philosopher, either.
>>7930687
t. Sophomore economics student
>>7930695
He wasn't even indian!
>>7930694
The only correct answer
>>7930655
Kropotkin, Stirner.
>>7930655
Left wing market anarchism, a form of left-libertarianism and individualist anarchism is associated with scholars such as Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, and Gary Chartier, who stress the value of radically free markets, termed freed markets to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges.
Referred to as left-wing market anarchists or market-oriented left-libertarians, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets, while maintaining that, taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality, and race.
The genealogy of contemporary market-oriented left-libertarianism—sometimes labeled "left-wing market anarchism"'—overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism.
Left wing market anarchism identifies with Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) which names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights, and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.
>>7930697
go on then, tell me why friedman and monetarism in general should be disregarded? you realise current economic thought is based around the influence of keynes and friedman right (new keynesians)? Friedman's work on the monetary history of the US is seminal.
Friedman and Keynes are the giants of 20th centruy economics.
>>7930694
how? he got fucked by keynes and just ended up writing polemics, very little rigorous economics (like most austrians, though he's better than rothbard or mises)
>>7930726
>go on then, tell me why friedman and monetarism in general should be disregarded?
lel trolled
>>7930718
So how does price formation occur without private property?
>>7930750
God dictates the prices of goods and services while also sharing goods and services with the people, so that they have every need covered without need of owning anything.
Keynes is my husbando
>>7930750
Usufruct is a limited real right (or in rem right) found in civil-law and mixed jurisdictions that unites the two property interests of usus and fructus:
* Usus (user) is the right to use or enjoy a thing possessed, directly and without altering it.
* Fructus (fruit, in a figurative sense) is the right to derive profit from a thing possessed: for instance, by selling crops, leasing immovables or annexed movables, taxing for entry, and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct
>>7930787
But anon, you are not answering the question. Usufruct requires some kind of private property to take place.
>not an economist
>wins nobel prize in economics
and what was the real lesson? don't ride in taxi-cabs, kids.
>>7930750
As long as their is commodity production as a 'market' there is private property. Whether this takes the form of traditional private ownership, cooperative, or public is an irrelevant detail.
>>7930822
Unless a centralized body produces and distributes every good and service according to real-time needs of the people.
>>7930808
No it doesn't. It falls short of full private property rights. That's the whole point.
>>7930822
No, you can have markets without private property.
>>7930875
What?
>>7930655
this cute buggy eyed dude right here
>>7930877
>making assertions that were BTFO nearly a century ago by some Austrian guys
>>7930882
nvm
>>7930888
Are you retarded?
> You can't have a labor market without literally owning people as slaves
Durp.
>>7930901
No, but my working assumption is that leftists are.
>>7930937
You are a clueless moron about economics.
>>7930884
good pick desu
>>7930877
historically, not in the present.
Samir Amin <3
your welcome world
>>7930655
>liking the Dismal Science
>>7931008
Marxist detected
>>7930655
Ludwig Von Mises
>>7931026
>triggered nigger
lol no, but try again. your meme mind might not be able to pin me down tho.
>>7931032>>7931041 "thier"
>>7930901
Austrian Economics are based on self-evident praexological axioms, while Marxist 'economics' are based on muh gibbsmedat and resentment of one's better's
>>7931061
>Austrian economics are based on solid theories, while Marxist "economics" are based on the material world
>>7931061
Like "A=A", right?
You = FUCKING retard.
>>7931097
*sigh
Listen we all know Austrian Econ is a joke but please stop degrading it to objectivism it is a fully fleshed out as-of-yet unrefuted school of though, and if you give them a second they really do make some compelling arguments. Hold your nose and actually read some Hoppe, it'll do you some ideological good.
Bernie Sanders
michal kalecki
>>7931026
So?
Marxist isn't a pejorative
Andrei Shleifer
Marx and Engels, of course
>>7931381
>architect of 90s Russian privatisation
goes straight 2gulag
>>7931453
This. The guy should be in prison for what he did.
>>7931296
The very idea of trying to understand economic behavior *a priori* is retarded. Go empirical or go home.
David D. Friedman is my favorite.
I'm surprised no one has posted Paul Krugman yet, he is pretty popular on /biz/
>>7931469
They're both fucking retarded, but for very different reasons.
>>7931296
austrian business cycle theory is pretty well refuted by the empirical data.
hoppe is the ultimate edgelord hack.
>>7930655
None. They all wreck the economy!
>>7931469
Would you care to elaborate? I agree on Krugman, I think he is wrong constantly but what is your problem with Friedman?
>>7931479
He claims to be a "libertarian" yet embraces private property and capitalism. It's a nonsensical mixture.
>>7931296
Hoppe is just your standard rightwing nutball. There's nothing innovative in his approach.
>>7931485
Why do people constantly say this?
Most ancaps argue that a consensus would define common law through a non-compulsory contract, sort of the opposite of the social contract. This has actually existed in history. Read Michael Huemer for more on that.
Freidman doesn't go down this path of course. He argues for the privatization of legislation and rule of law through the means of a secular form of cuius regio, eius religio.
Either way, property rights can exist in an anarchist society.
It is interesting in either
>>7931499
>Most ancaps argue that a consensus would define common law through a non-compulsory contract, sort of the opposite of the social contract. This has actually existed in history. Read Michael Huemer for more on that.
Michael Huemer never even attempts to justify private property rights in his book. Which is utterly bizarre, since that is the only area of actual disagreement with anarchism. The whole premise of anarchism is the rejection of private property rights and other state-generated coercive structures.
>Freidman doesn't go down this path of course. He argues for the privatization of legislation and rule of law through the means of a secular form of cuius regio, eius religio.
What a mess. You are getting farther and farther from anything resembling anarchism, in a desperate attempt to make sure rich people stay rich.
>Either way, property rights can exist in an anarchist society.
No.
>>7931512
>The whole premise of anarchism is the rejection of private property rights and other state-generated coercive structures
No the whole premise is self-governance and voluntary institutions. You conveniently ignored what I said about the refutation of the social contract and the idea of a rule of law through a voluntary consensus.
>Michael Huemer never even attempts to justify private property rights in his book.
Not directly but he must mention it a few dozen times. The second half of his book deals with security, dispute resolution, democracy and defense which play into property rights in one way or another. I feel like I've argued with you about this before.
>You are getting farther and farther from anything resembling anarchism, in a desperate attempt to make sure rich people stay rich.
wew
>>7931296
Austrian predictions, particularly regarding monetary policy, have proven consistently wrong. Complete rejection of empirical falsification while at the same time insisting it can predict empirical phenomena makes it the definition of a pseudoscience. Hoppe's work on democracy has been descisively refuted empirically; his weak comeback regarding racial differences ignores the fact that the data is consistent across many doverse world regions. A monarchy will inevitably descend into monopoly cronyism, and lacks the checks & balances that allow democracy, however flawed of a system it is, to throw out blatantly corrupt leaders.
>>7930655
John Roemer
>when /lit/ tries to discuss economics
Not an economist but reading noam chomsky now
>>7930694
His warning in Road to Serfdom is good to keep in mind, but he didn't provide much of substance.
