Hey /pol/
I recently read pic related and it's turned me into a smug asshole. I now act like an expert on macro-economics (I'm not) and lecture people all the time on the dangers of socialism.
Cure me, /pol/. Prove Hayek wrong.
>>68207397
have this, colgate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt7ia_KUyHM
>>68207484
Thanks, but I don't even know what language that is
Bump, I'm losing friends over this
im about halfway through it havent picked it up in ages though . Its been a good read though . People should already know the dangers of socialism or maybe you associate with the wrong people
Macro economics is a capitalist lie. It doesn't exist.
Playing devil's advocate here:
Didn't he get BTFO by Keynes and pretty much failed to predict events that Keynes did?
I think Mises is way more credible than Hayek desu
>>68210574
Keynes is the greatest economist who ever lived desu (besides Adam Smith). He BTFO'd both Hayek & Mises.
>>68209807
Everything you disagree with is a capitalist lie.
>>68210772
Adam Smith was really impressive in the way he used pure logic and reasoning to make his conclusions back when using mathematical modelling to support your theories didn't really exist
There's a reason the Austrian economic philosophy is fringe nowadays because of how discredited it is. The exception imo is malinvestment theory, which I really think there's something behind and economists should pay more attention to
>>68211045
Aside from game theory, has anything worthwhile been produced in economic theory the last 50 years? The field is filled with so much sophistry in general.
>>68210772
Every one of Keynes theories is proven wrong. Western countries are on the brink of financial collapse thanks to his idiotic ideas.
Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlett is a sound refutation of that faggot.
>>68212286
Still though, Australiabro is right when he says that Hayek and Mises got BTFO from him, doesn't mean that he didn't get BTFO by people like Milton Friedman or others later on tho
>>68212417
Source on this?
>>68207397
Your uncurable. You swallowed economic redpill.
>>68209225
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCMtlM7vEY
They're right you're wrong. Smarten up lad. Hayek had no response to Keynes and instead wrote a self-admittedly indecipherable multi-volume tome on capital complexity. Nothing about countercyclical economics.
Additionally he poisons all economic debate by framing things in terms of degrees of government intervention. Basically a more high-brow version of Americans thinking that anything that isn't laissez-faire liberalism is communism.
>>68215209
It basically is though
>>68212286
Actually no western countries are on the brink of financial collapse due to Chicago school policies, since that's what they've been following for the past 40 years.
For some strange reason, Austrolibertarians and other misinformed Americans like to think of Chicago monetarism (throwing money at banks) as Keynesianism (infrastructure spending and tax cuts and debt reduction on middle class). Probably because they don't understand either.
>>68207397
>Cure me, /pol/. Prove Hayek wrong.
You simply cannot.
>>68215322
OK but that has nothing to do with economics. Maybe if you want to frame things in terms of slippery-slopes and political theory.
If you're talking about economics, you have to be able to break things apart into smaller pieces (AKA not engage in such grossly absurd reductionism so as to destroy the possibility of non-politicized observation) in order to meaningfully analyze economic mechanisms and phenomena
>>68215209
>Hayek had no response to Keynes
Keynes had down syndrome and his "theory" was based on extremely bad math.
>>68215467
Looking at the fundamental moral implications of an economic model and making a judgement based on that seems pretty meaningful to me. It also leads to a much more concise discussion.
>>68215502
The math is less important than the concepts. Pretty sure that your related infograph has nothing to say about the paradox of thrift or the paradoxical nature of Say's Law as it pertains to things like output and demand. I'm not interested in it. Precision isn't really of the essence, considering that economic policy is conducted in a "looking over your shoulder" fashion, using all the available data.
>>68215679
>Looking at the fundamental moral implications of an economic model and making a judgement based on that seems pretty meaningful to me. It also leads to a much more concise discussion.
Exactly, you're looking at moral implications, therefore not looking at economics. Therefore no one should listen to you in any economic discussions, since you're not interested in actually discussing economics.
>It also leads to a much more concise discussion.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - HL Mencken
>>68215989
>The math is less important than the concepts.
>the core mathemathic formula that keynesian economics rests on is false
>IT'S NOT IMPORTANT GOYIM
>>68211045
>Austrian econ is discredited
>Except for the one portion of Austrianism that has been discredited
Get out faggot
>>68216377
Provide proof that the math being used in your little pic written by a basement austrian was the math employed by Keynes, address the other points I made aside from the ones your eyes were looking for, don't post pic related without thinking it's not an allegory on the absurdity of mining gold, and then I might give (You) a serious response.
>>68216377
Also Keynesian economics doesn't rest on a core mathematical formula it rests on a core economic concept. Nice dubs
>>68216596
>Provide proof that the math being used in your little pic written by a basement austrian was the math employed by Keynes
http://tugwit.blogspot.ca/
Read it, it shows everything you need to know.
>>68216628
But it's okay if the "math" you cucks keep whining about is totally wrong though? lmao
>>68216628
We're talking about quantitative things here though. Number of gold bars, number of dollars etc etc.
If the concepts don't lend themselves to a mathematical structure, it means they're logically inconsistent.
>>68215989
You're incredibly naïve if you think economics can be discussed in a moral vacuum. Hayek, Keynes and even that brain-dead moron Krugman, all their work was highly influenced by their own moral values, can you not see that?
At best economics is a waffly pseudo science were players compete to prove their data set Trumps(TM) their opponents. At least by focusing on the moral implications you can start to inject a semblance of objectivity into it.
Points for having high elocution skills despite being Russian though.
>>68216780
This guy seems insane. I'm partway through his thing on consumption and savings and he hasn't debunked anything, just quibbled on definitions.
>But it's okay if the "math" you cucks keep whining about is totally wrong though? lmao
What about this is so hard for you to understand? Keynesian economics would exist even if math didn't.
>>68207397
Anyone else think he looks like Shia Labeouf?
>>68217085
>This guy seems insane.
Basic math is insane to you?
Okay.
>I'm partway through his thing on consumption and savings and he hasn't debunked anything, just quibbled on definitions.
Definitions are very important.
Keep reading.
>Keynesian economics would exist even if math didn't.
I'm saying you guys keep crying all the time that austrians don't use math and thus are not real economists.
The irony is keynesian math is extremely wrong.
>>68216820
The majority of intellectual output in the field of economics and political economy in terms of treatises and stand-alone papers has historically constrained itself to basic arithmetic and there hasn't really been any problem with doing this simply to illustrate overarching concepts.
>>68217059
It's a chicken or the egg scenario. Did their values lead them to their research or did their research lead them to their values?
If you want to take that path though, how does it make you feel that Hayek's ambit was a bunch of coddled Viennese Jews, just like the rest of the Austrian school? I could just as easily ascribe motivations to the Austrian school. Here are some right now: they're a bunch of greedy kikes who want to keep interest rates high, unemployment high, and output low so they can destroy nations while acquiring cheap property and assets at the same time, essentially re-purposing the nation away from something that creates jobs and prosperity and towards something singularly devoted to the appreciation of their assets.
>Points for having high elocution skills despite being Russian though.
Thx but I'm American actually :P
>>68217210
I'm not gona respond to you based on the way you're overeager to put words in my mouth
>>68217499
Just stop being a keynesian already, holy shit.
Why do you want everyone to be poor and limit economic production?
The highest growth periods in america happened when we were using more of a free market monetary system(gilded age).
>>68217626
Sorry man someone has to show you the light.
(BTW the gilded age was characterized by high infrastructure spending in railroads effected by government land giveaways and tariff walls)
That's not even talking about the growth potential of an economy aside from political economy. Strangely enough, for all their anti-government talk, lots of austrolibertarians believe that political economy is the only facet of economics and that the only conditions for economic growth are those set or not set by the government.
>>68217445
>The majority of intellectual output in the field of economics and political economy in terms of treatises and stand-alone papers has historically constrained itself to basic arithmetic and there hasn't really been any problem with doing this simply to illustrate overarching concepts.
This strikes me as absurd though. I don't understand how people can stake the fate of a country on back of the envelope guess work.
I get that there are lots of variables, but I would have thought that at some point somebody would sit down and develop a clear logical structure that can be converted to mathematics and shown conclusively.
Economics is hugely consequential. Weird that nobody cares if it's actually true.
>>68217769
>Sorry man someone has to show you the light.
I just showed you the light and you couldn't respond to me.
>high infrastructure spending
Yes, by businesses.
>effected by government land giveaways
The government shouldn't have had this land in the first place.
Anyway, after WW2 the keynesians said we should keep the war spending or there was going to be an economic collapse. They were actually that crazy.
USA ended up cutting that spending, taxes and a lot of the FDR's retarded laws and guess what happened? Guess.
The most economically productive year in american history happened, and this started the post war boom.
Sorry keynesians.
>>68217794
I think the thing is economists are expected to give people yes or no answers on what the effects of policies are. If you had a giant economic model that incorporated every single facet of economic phenomena it would be so clunky and dependent on so many different inputs of information that it would be unusable and people would accuse economists of being incompetent.
And that's just if all economists agreed.
There are other economists who believe that, epistemologically, there shouldn't be an overarching model built because all economic phenomena can already be deduced from microeconomic conclusions (1 seller and 1 buyer; that's Austrians basically).
>>68217445
Even more kudos for your high elocution skills despite being American then. :)
Good talk.
>>68217995
The trouble with pointing out specific incidents of policy and their effects is that you're blocking out other factors, like the drastically reduced competitiveness of foreign countries. The American post-war boom was handed on a golden plate. (another facet of economics ignored by austrians: competitiveness in the international market)
And you didn't show me the light because even if some basement austrian told me that you can't multiply after you add it would have no bearing on the concepts of the paradox of thrift, the effect of uncertainty on investment, the effect of aggregate demand on output and so on.
>>68218053
>There are other economists who believe that, epistemologically, there shouldn't be an overarching model built because all economic phenomena can already be deduced from microeconomic conclusions (1 seller and 1 buyer; that's Austrians basically).
Of course, it must be true that whatever way you choose to frame your economics, the answers must all agree with all the other models.
Keynsian economics must agree with austrian economics. I don't understand when I ask someone an economic question and they say "depends if you're a keynsian or an austrian".
Whatever model I accept isn't going to change the actual outcome.
How do people get away with this?
>>68209225
Stop trying to prove anything to your friends.
Use your knowledge to exploit inefficient systems and invest in better ones.
Once you earn more money in your sleep than they do in a month of work they will notice.
Understanding the free market should humble you and not turn you into a smug asshole.
>>68218277
>economics is an exact science with an objective truth
>>68218277
Different schools of though use different models have different underlying assumptions. Most modern day economists agree on neoclassical economics as the basis for most of their models and diverge into smaller branches for the more cutting edge research. It takes time for good ideas to withstand scientific scrutiny and set itself apart from merely not bad ideas.
>>68218422
>>economics is an exact science with an objective truth
How could it not be? We're talking about events that objectively occur in the real world. There's only one answer.
I get that you'll want to approximate certain things to make it easier to figure out, but ultimately they must agree.
>>68207397
Hayek's conclusions regarding increased security leading to authoritarianism make sense within the limited framework of his model. He doesn't account for the countervailing response of the citizenry when they feel that they lose so much of their own liberty they feel that it compromises their security and pushes back against the government. He handwaved this element away in his book. In reality, we do see authoritarian governments who once promised increased national security but rarely is their rule absolute and dissent becomes a omnipresent issue for the dictators. It is still possible for political revolutions to erupt and reset the cycle on large and small scales. He also doesn't account for technological innovations which make it easier to monitor the political process such as internet and wifi.
As for his economic models, many elements described by the Austrian school were inherited and given nuance by the Monetarists which were then adopted as part of mainstream neo-classical economics. Elements of socialism such as flat wealth redistribution are still discredited whereas Single payer systems are accepted as the eventual equilibrium of situations where the government is interacting with a monopsony or engaging in "human capital management" (security, education, insurance, health care) or society wide infrastructure (roads, regulations, public services and utilities), or trying to maximize its net income over the long term within a well understood industry.
>>68218277
The problem is that when you reduce things, you lose information.
There are many processes happening simultaneously in a hypothetical economy. Austrians say that we can observe these processes individually and take note, without regard to how this process will be effecting other processes.
Others, like Keynesians, say that if you are only observing one process at a time without regard to its effect on other processes, then you are losing sight of the big picture.
Basically Austrians dismiss the concepts of inter-process effects for strange reasons not entirely understood by me. Methodological Individualism they call it. A good example of ideology "influencing" social science.
>>68218806
>Others, like Keynesians, say that if you are only observing one process at a time without regard to its effect on other processes, then you are losing sight of the big picture.
So wouldn't it be better to say that I should employ keynsian economics in situations where there is going to be a large effect of one transaction on another (for example, if I'm the fed trying to figure out what kind of stimulus I should use).
On the other hand, if I'm conducting an economic analysis on the city of hickville, iowa, I may get a better answer from austrian economics.
>>68218537
For one you're trying to use a model based on rules and rationality apply it to an irrational system. People don't act in a rational manner.
A slight digression but it helps illustrate my point - the nuclear industry used to judge whether a plant was safe based on deterministic analysis - this looks at the system components and uses rules and rationality (i.e. reactor physics and thermal hydraulics) to determine what the worst case accident scenario is. Three Mile Island showed us that what is deterministically the worst may not actually be the worst, due to human factors and seemingly unrelated events having Unforeseen Consequences. The industry now uses something called probabilistic analysis which at times send as airy-fairy as economics and doesn't guarantee safety either (Fukushima).
TLDR - Rational models only work in closed systems where no irrationality is present. The global market is not such a system.
>>68218702
...continued
Hayek's views of government regulation mandated that it include protection against fraud and market externalities. He was for the free market except in situations when the free market did not function. Modern understanding of economics has not contradicted this general principle. His reluctant opinion towards government regulation would accordingly shift as modern economics further identified different methods of market failures in contract theory, organizational economics and behavioural game theory.
Instead of arguing against the dangers of socialism, you need to understand the concepts of what Hayek was arguing about, the danger of sacrificing increasingly large amounts of power to the government and the temptation for the people within government to extend this power for their own gain (principle agent problem). He was also against market failures and thus was for government intervention to enforce property law and dissuade fraud. Hayek was a limited rule utilitarian, meaning that if it was in the best interests of people to give up on security, liberty of freedom so long as the marginal benefit outweighed marginal cost, then Hayek thought it was worth it. But he understood that human understanding is faulty and that we should err on the side of caution. He believed "a framework of justice is an indispensable condition of the successful achievement of general welfare". This type of moral philosophy sees later development and refinement where the apparent dichotomy of security and liberty are united in later developments of philosophy such as Jon Rawls "Theory of Justice" and E. Anscombe's development of consequentalism in "Modern Moral Philosophy".
>>68219218
The economy of the city of hickville Iowa is just as much of a "complicated network" as is the economy of the USA. It's much smaller and much less complicated, but it's still qualitatively similar.
The thing is that, I think, most keynesians recognize the validity of methodological individualism while looking at scenarios of 1-on-1 exchange. Just not when looking at 3 1-on-1 exchanges and their effects on each other. Meaning that they still have a place for microeconomics but they don't believe it should be used for analyzing whole economies.
>>68219372
...continued
I get the idea you're trying to convince friends who already have an entranced idea of what socialism is, you don't get across to these people by saying "hurr durr, the thing you believe is bad, you wrong, me right."
You need to break it down and win them over on small ideas, until they see the whole of it makes sense. You need to explain to them the smaller nuances like how Hayek's work still stands today as a testament to his greatness and he is respected by Economists everywhere. At the same time many of his ideas have been studied in greater depth by later students of economics. While some of his principles remain solid, they have often become more nuanced, more fleshed out, and in some cases doing total 180's when it comes to prescribed practice. Such as healthcare being free from government intervention to being almost entirely government mandated. Insurance being optional, to becoming compulsory. To understand more, see Akerlof's Lemons problem. So you can't just say he wanted this policy and that policy, but this idea and that idea.
Some people would be shocked to think of Hayek advertising things common in modern "socialism" on areas of market failures such as fraud and externalities whereas he truly stood against a marxist communism and authoritarian fascism. Don't simply argue for or against a label. Argue for his ideas, you win people over on ideas, not on simple adages that people have preconceived notion like "Communism good", "Socialism bad" or any other "Hurr your favourite idea wrong" argument.
>>68219602
That sounds reasonable.
>>68219290
>For one you're trying to use a model based on rules and rationality apply it to an irrational system. People don't act in a rational manner.
I don't have a problem with that. Obviously unforseen events are going to occur, and when they do, the model is going to break.
But there's no need to assume that people are rational. We can just say that they have a probability of behaving in a particular way. Whatever probability we choose, whether it's the true probability or not, we should have agreement among different models, given the (possibly wrong) probability as an assumption for both models.
I'm just saying there's a difference between not having all the information and having logically inconsistent models. In the case of the latter, somebody is wrong. In the case of the former, we can mitigate the issue by studying people, or whatever.
>>68219602
Multiple actor economies are a well understood reality within Keynesian economics. John Vonn Neumann came up models that describe economies with non-aggregated multiple actors, (ie. real world numbers instead of people fractions in complicated interactions.)
There's nothing wrong the math, much of economic math is so basic, it's just called computation since computers can do it. The math is often right because it's double-checked before it gets published, Keynes was considered a math prodigy and published several papers before he was considered an economics figurehead.
The problems often lie within the fundamental assumptions underpinning the math and economists have mostly disavowed Keynesianism for assumptions such as fixed savings levels instead of a supply and demand model of savings based on interest. The idea that everyone saves the same no matter what interest rate. Or the idea that people can perfectly prepare for changes in the money level (inflation), whereas we now know that some people have no fucking clue how inflation works and don't prepare at all. The inflation affects the entire economy evenly whereas nowadays we separate inflation by industry, commodity and consumer types. These are some of the things that brought down Keynesianism.
>>68207397
Just be less smug about it.
>>68207397
>expert on macro-economics (I'm not)
There you go, you already admitted you're an idiot you dipshit.
>>68217445
>>68216628
>>68215989
>>68215467
>>68215330
>>68215209
Bы гoвopитe пo aнглийcкий oчeнь хopoшo.
>>68215209
you ever thought about suicide dude?
>>68223187
>someone who agrees with a point is not an expert, therefore the point itself is wrong.
Fuck off Cancuck. Go be a retard somewhere else
>>68224075
Not only that; the Leaf wrote 3 long posts with the intention of addressing the OP's problem. The OP, however, is obviously a troll attempting to mock a particular type of person. The Leaf is a special kind of retard.
>>68207397
BEADY
>>68218806
Good lord give me strength. Some people are born servants.
"Hey guys jump on the train lets all be slaves!! Lol wtf why do you want to be responsible for yourself when Keynes said we can all be happy if we give all power to a central government consisting of people who want our best and nothing else, never would they turn to evil dictators like every single time this was tried in history. Oh no, this wasnt real socialism, this time its gonna work, cause they got me, i am a special snowflake you know? cmon now, lets get on our knees and blow our monitary elite!! I am so smart!!"
>>68224367
I'm actually OP. No idea why ID changed.
And yes, of course I'm not really losing friends over this, but I am looking for criticism of the book.
