Accurate?
nah
>>69140498
Yes.
>>69141434
You need monies to build industry and infrastructure like Germany before WW2
>>69142485
All Keynesianism does is reallocate reaources inefficiently. It doesnt magically create wealth by devaluing currencies or raiding savings
>>69140728
Fuck off to stormfront, nazi, /pol/ is no place for you. This is a libertarian board.
>>69143425
>>69143227
The thing is that it's possible to allocate resources efficiently if those resources go to things that the market refuses to inherently provide.
Like the Hoover fucking Dam.
OTOH, anything the market is willing to provide should be left to the market. But that list of things is surprisingly smaller than we believe. This is also why Hitler and Roosevelt took off in the 30s. They were doing business in the absence of ANY business.
"Something" is better than nothing, and that's the key component that Austrians cannot understand, due to belief in their market omnipotence.
>>69140498
Austrian economics = Autism
Pure a priori and doesn't account for flexibility in markets.
Any government program which inherently reduces overhead costs sufficiently for market transactions should be funded.
~about 10% of people can cognitively understand what I am talking about.
>>69143991
Austrian economics outright fucking rejects Empiricism. I'm not even kidding. Its Marxism Tier.
>>69143843
You're about to get attacked by Austrian shills who must see everything in black and white, ie invisible hand always allocates resources most efficiently
>>69143425
pol has always been NAZI newfag
>>69143425
>This is a libertarian board.
kek
Georgist/Austrian synthesis is top tier.
>>69144160
you clearly don't know what you're talking about, a fucking leaf, kill yourself. Your idol is dead, and he was a fucking morally bankrupt, socialist piece of garbage. Milton Friedman is 100x better than anyone from the National SOCIALIST party. Libertarians have always ruled the board, your entire ideology is just a meme.
>>69144147
>ie invisible hand always allocates resources most efficiently
but it does! only through state enforced monopolies do market failures occur
>>69144024
thank you
government providing demand, public goods and public utilities (only for whites of course) is the most "redpilled" position.
Only kikes want to cut spending that helps the white working class.
>>69144631
domestic free trade is always superior to government control of the means of production.
There's a reason the USSR was such a stagnant shithole that was 30 years behind the US technologically and economically.
Austrian "economics" is the equivalent of what Mormonism is to Christianity.
Marxists don't claim to be economists. They founded their own field called Sociology and often times Sociologist and Economists come to blows on various issues, unsurprisingly.
Chicago School tend to shill and be intellectually dishonest but at least they aren't total retards.
The rest are legit economic positions even if all of them are flawed in some way or another.
>>69144840
> helps the white working class.
You mean trashy rednecks and lardfucks on welfare?
Fuck the white working class you gibsmedat piece of shit.
Do not try to help low IQ whites. They need to be pruned so we can improve our gene pool.
>>69144536
Sorry about your brown skin :(
>>69145359
>Fuck the white working class
t. Shlomokikensteinbergoqitz
>>69140728
hurr durr "muh broken window fallacy"...
>>69145359
Rather help rednecks than enrich the 1%. Rednecks are bros. I could count on them to pull me out of a ditch or something.
1% are traitors who have no loyalty to anyone but their wealth. I cannot count on them so why should I prefer them over rednecks?
>/pol/
>nazi
You newfag stormweenies make me sick.
/pol/ was mainly libertarian in ye olde times, after moot nuked /pol/ back in 2015 a lot of stormfags poured in however.
Despite that, they are still a minority.
>>69143425
Fuck off and kill yourself because you doing that doesn't affect me.
>>69144099
Does it really? Because all the books I've read about them suggest otherwise. They just reject any mathematical model of predicting things because they see the economy as millions of individual transactions where a single individual can change the entire game and no formula reflects that.
>>69146959
Is it opposite day today?
>>69147019
Because of that they reject econometrics. Hence they empiricism. Working with anecdotes or samples of size 1 is not science.
>>69147019
https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/some-scattered-thoughts-on-austrian-economics/
They tend to hide it, the same way Muslims hide that Muhammad was a pedo.
>>69147310
By that logic, it would be impossible to explain to how Advertising works, because that also relies on Econometrics.
Austrian, Georgian and Chicago economists are ignored by the government because they don't argue from the position of "give government more money and power". This also creates the illusion that these people don't know what they are talking about because "no one takes them seriously".
>>69147310
>>69147554
So all the books I've been reading are worthless? What school do you guys follow?
I like Austrians
>>69145968
Traditionalism has very little to do with national socialism. What is national socialism but Wilsonian progressiveness + gas the kikes?
>>69149216
Neoclassical.
Austrian is too basic, and crazy.
>>69143843
>"Something" is better than nothing
Funnt you say this considering FDR's policies kepyus in the depression much longer than doing nothing would have
>>69147554
I agree with you. I am not against econometrics.
>>69149216
They are not worthless, just incomplete. In addition, austrian economics gives you the right intuition to think about issues.
Most of austrian economics has been incorporated into the mainstream. If you want to know what economists actually think and what they have been discussing, read the journal of economic perspectives. It's written for intelligent laymen and non-technical. You can find the papers on Sci-hub.
Cruz admitting his love for Lollipop??? Watch short clip right here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOED4M-WEM
>>69147310
>econometrics
>empiricism
lol. It's about as empirical as sociology.
>>69144024
examples -in your opinion- in the current US economy ?
>>69151013
Are you a neoclassical guy or Post-Kenysian?
Austrian economics is a cult. Absolute joke.
Keynesian all the way baby.
>>69151013
YouTube, mises.com and undergraduate courses do not accurately portray what is actually done in economics. Economics is actually the most sophisticated science using statistics atm. The others either don't need it (hard sciences) or are still catching up (psychology or political science). Sociology is subpar because many sociologists do advocacy instead of science.
>>69151182
Keynesian is too left wing, it's what bernie sanders will base his economic policies on
>>69151167
Neoclassical/Austrian/Georgist
I don't believe econometrics tells us anything useful. Seriously, name one thing.
It's just statistics. And as you know, you can 'prove' LITERALLY ANYTHING with statistics. Tweak this variable, tweak that.
You end up with this
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/
The strongest principles in economics have been found via deduction (perhaps with some help from some observations).
Supply & demand, marginal utility, etc - these are based on logic, not induction.
>>69151558
Name one useful thing that has been found from econometrics.
>>69143843
>image
at first i thought that was a fat woman with a blue shirt walking between many sheeps.
And to talk some more about induction v deduction...
I think it's a fool's errand to try and predict what people will do. If you want to try and do that, go for it! But I don't think it's important for the discipline of economics (maybe for business).
Rather, I think we can DEDUCE what the "winning strategies" are in an economy, and I think we can say that people will tend to adopt those winning strategies as a matter of natural selection.
Good fucking thread. 10 years out of my Econ degree and I forgot too much.
It did make me a mega robot for making good life decisions though. Thanks Econ
>>69151914
If you do some research on gerald friedman, you will find he is not respected amongst most economists because he mostly does advocacy.
You cannot do whatever you want in econometrics. A lot of work being put out there is actually pretty bad and most economists don't trust it.
I can give you one interesting example. It has been shown the longer a country was an european colony in the past, the larger its GDP is today. This controls for all the crap you can imagine and for confounding variables.
>>69152939
Mainstream economics uses both those methods. The latter form its theoretical apparatus. The former its empirical analysis.
In statistics, your analysis is always stochastic meaning that you acknowledge you will never predict everything. There will always be uncertainty. This is as true for economics, as it is for physics, biology or psychology. Social sciences have the issue that you are studying something that optimally reacts to you and to policy makers, so you have to be careful in what you do. Still, it does not mean it is impossible, just really hard.
But even if you couldn't conclude anything from empirical analysis (which happens most often that not) relying solely on theory is a sure way to make you a crank. If you can't corroborate your theory, you have no grounds for what you're saying.
Cruz admitting his love for Lollipop? Watch short clip right here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOED4M-WEM
>>69147014
>implying that freedom means that just because someone can do something, they should do something
fucking pro government cuck
>>69145968
A FUCKING LEAF
>>69144160
In the early days stormfags, ancaps, and paleocons were the dominant ideologies.
>>69154812
>Not once, not twice, not three times but NINE times all across the country!
>>69153760
>It has been shown the longer a country was an european colony in the past, the larger its GDP is today.
Sure, but did we need econometrics to tell us that, or to understand it?
It's institutional economics and it is understood rather deductively. We understand that better institutions that protect property rights and reduce corruption lead to better results. We've known this for hundreds of years.
>>69154719
> relying solely on theory is a sure way to make you a crank. If you can't corroborate your theory, you have no grounds for what you're saying.
I must disagree. You can't perform experiments or REPLICATE experiments. I understand that you will try to adjust for different variables, but surely you understand how difficult that is and how susceptible it is to manipulation and bias?
Sorry man. I don't REALLY have anything against the idea of econometrics. I think it's fine for checking theory. But when people try to use it as LE EMPIRICAL PROOF, it's just bad and cringey. You see papers all the time that try to use metrics to make really bad conclusions about certain things without taking a full consideration for all of the govt. regulations we have.
Minimum wage, socialized healthcare, demand-side theories and various things which are so clearly bad, are justified with muh metrics. It's irritating.
>Austrian
>Economics
>>69144160
Confirmed for newfag.
>>69140498
Austrians are scum, Keynesians are better than Georgists, other than that, accurate.
>>69143425
Reddit is that way, kid.
>>69156588
Econometrics is a body of methods that guarantee you can identify causal effects given that some assumptions are met. If you use simple descriptive statistics or just regression with controls you will most likely fail to meet the assumptions required to isolate causal effects. From this point on, any statement you make is most likely wrong. Because of this, no serious economist, or statistician for that matter, will trust you. Journalists and the public, of course, might still take the bait because they don't know any better. And that's why you hear so much noise in the media.
There is a large array of methods in econometrics that can get causal effects from non-experimental data. Most are quirky in their own way and require some particular strong assumption to be used. However, since there are so many, often one of them works. To use them, you need the institutional knowledge you are talking about. If you ignore some regulation that turns out to be relevant, for instance, and someone finds you out, your study may go down the toilet.
Replication can also be done (and it is done) in economics.
On your last sentence, maybe they are being justified because they are not as wrong as you might believe. I am not saying there are many cranks on the left because there are but what's your basis to say the theories "are so clearly bad"? Three ideas/theories you mentioned have pros and cons, situations where it is not recommended to implement them and other where it is, limits with respect to their level of implementation, etc. Most of the time, things are not as black and white. If you approach a subject with your mind already made up, why are you doing it?
>>69140498
Serious question. What is the differences between Austrian Chicagoan and neo-classical? Aren't they very close eachother?
And how we will fix socialist problem. As i see, nearly all intellectuals in the world are believing marxist bullshit.
>>69158343
I am not saying there aren't*
>>69146959
Wrong. /pol/ used to be maybe 25% libertarian and is now maybe 7% libertarian. Nationalists of every stripe have always predominated.
>inb4 SOCIALISM OMG HITLER WAS AN SJW
This is the most retarded libcuck meme. Libertarianism is Jewpilled garbage for people who care more about money than anything else. Disgusting craven kikes on a par with marxist kikes.
>>69143425
Libertarianism is starting to echo it seems. But, only when it's called for to create a culture of censorship.
>>69143843
>"Something" is better than nothing
>The_Seen_And_The_Unseen.pdf
>What are market distortions
>>69158343
econometrics is still prone to the fact that most economists are retarded
econometrics reveals that niggers have 70 iq points, but they don't admit the inferiority of niggers.
replication studies are NOT a replaceent for human judgement.
>>69156588
you're never going to convince people that judgement works. I agree with you. but the fact of the matter is that good judgement is reinforced by not only markets, but also lethal force. which is why libertarianism is impossible. smart people NEED lethal force in order to reinforce their superior judgement.
you'll never convince a dumb person your logic is superior any more than you can describe color to a colorblind person. it is literally beyond their neurological capacity
>>69140498
Perfectly accurate. Except the Keynesian should be blowing the Marxist.
>>69158646
it's a useful meme, becuase it confuses sjws
hitler WAS a demotist. he appealed to emotions rather than logic. which was good, but only good becuase he was killing subhumans. it isn't the basis of a lasting order. it's simply the only way to get rid of communism.
hitler is a hero of war, but I wouldn't make him president in a time of peace.
>>69145968
Where do the national libertarians go?
>>69143843
It's an impressive dam, but the free market has built larger and better things. If we can adjust our view with respect to technology, you can find larger projects during the Roman Empire, and several other empires, where wealthy people pooled their money into immense projects.
The Hoover Dam is also not that impressive, spare your "fuckings" for more grandiouse things
>>69158509
The starting point is the same. Austrian economics takes a very simplified view of the economy and arrives to the same conclusions as the neoclassical when the latter is simplified to the max. Simple neoclassical economics is associated with Chicago University because they were huge proponents of those simple models. When you add complexity to neoclassical economics, by dropping some assumptions such everybody knowing the same things about a market, its conclusions diverge from austrian economics.
Another difference is that, in general, austrian economists do not use statistics, only theory; whilst neoclassicals use both.
Having intellectuals believe in marxism comes from sociology where many adore Marx and are more interested in advancing a political agenda rather than actually studying people. For that reason, sociology's reputation has been better. Most economists look at Marx as psychologists look at Freud: "it is interesting, but irrelevant and largely false".
>>69143425
>>>/reddit/
>>69143843
except the government NEVER provides what teh freemarket is unwilling to provide, except for NASA
the government supplies what the people vote for, which is usually free shit, which causes shortages and inflation. go fuck yourself
>>69159210
Beyond the guy that made that image, bro :)
I basically advocate for a minarchist government where citizens have to be of European ancestry and volunteer for the military draft.
I believe workers should be free to migrate, but do not get the 'right of abode' or citizenship, ever.
I support Austrian economics with sound currency.
>>69159016
If you do descriptive statistics, you find that black people have, on average, lower IQs, true. Here, you identified a statistical trend, not causal effects. You can say "black people, on average, are less intelligent", which is itself enough to raise the PC alarm, not "black people, on average, are less intelligent because that's a trait inherent to being black and, hence, inferior".
If you actually want to test the effect of race on intelligence, you need to control for a large array of environmental variables and even there it might not be enough to conclude anything. You might find that there is something about being black that makes them less intelligent or not. I have no clue what you would find.
>>69159833
Energy-based currency, my man. Spread the word. Much better than gold.
>>69159331
the simple models work better because they have fewer bad priors. the complex models make too many false assumptions.
also, most economists ARE marxists. keynesianism is marxism-lite. it makes the implicit assumption that redistribution improves the economy, using unfalsifiable models. also, every time it turns out to be false, they just use state apparatuses to tweak the numbers.
consequently, most economists ARE marxist. and they'd be right, being a marxist and condoning handouts tends to mean they also get a handout, and control over the distribution of the handouts
>>69143425
It was a libertarian board some time ago but now that an easier way to express their racism has come along /pol/ has molded into authoritarian faggots
>>69159903
yes, my brown friend. except we have discovered, through deductive reasoning, the genetic PATHWAY of decreased intelligence, and verified it NOT through inductive statistics, but through genetic science.
YOU would have us stop our investigation into genetics at the inductive, which is not conclusive because it cannot identify the actual workings of reality. you would stop in genetics, and so would you stop in economy.
we have identified, deductively, and through evolutionary psychology, the mental mechanisms involved in economy, such as risk, moral hazard, limited concepts of rational self interest. you want to pretend that these things aren't objective reality borne from our genetics and the structure of our minds, you want to DENY these things and try to describe human behavior purely in terms of numbers.
that's dumb.
>>69140498
economics is all jewish; ironically enough marx is the only one with decent insights.
>>69159949
Nothing is better than gold
>>69160317
Stahp
>>69159969
Simple models assume, for instance:
- people know everything that's going on the market (if they don't, they can know it at 0 cost) and can perfectly quantify risk;
- people do not indirectly affect each other in any way;
- there is an infinite amount of sellers and buyers in markets;
- there is a market for everything (literally everything).
These priors seem pretty unreasonable to me.
The theoretical apparatus of marxism and keynesianism is radically different. Keynesianism tweaks marginalist economics (which is baby neoclassical economics). Marxism borrows from David Ricardo and Adam Smith, abandons any idea about individualism and optimization and proceeds from there.
Historically, Keynes was a conservative during the 20 and 30's focused on saving capitalism from radical marxist ideas sweeping Europe and the US from the URSS.
>>69160613
Correct, if you mean investing in nothing is better than investing in gold.
>>69159794
That sounds retarded. How about you just gas the kikes kick mexicans out close the border fuck everyone and then become full libertarian.
Then people can argue about faggots or whatever retarded shit the kids are into.
>>69160311
Hmm, did you know that evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology "stole" their modus operandi from economics?
Deductively, you cannot find anything about reality, only follow through the implications of your assumptions. You have to check the conclusions of your theory against reality in the end. Evolutionary psychology and biology have done that and have been largely successful. I don't know what research on intellligence and race has concluded but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small connection. Still, these studies would probably be solely on IQ. Claiming one race is inferior to the other based on just one metric is a bit ridiculous, no?
And I'm not brown lol
>>69161373
Because having access to a larger pool of labor/human capital is generally a good thing?
The reason we restrict citizenship is so that the institutions don't change.
Allowing foreign workers into your country is objectively a good thing. Unless you're a low-skill shithead that can't compete with foreigners. Are you scared of competition dude?
>>69160839
simple measures assume
- the market in AGGREGATE knows what's going on, over a LONG time scale
-people affect each other by SHARING good information more so than bad info over time
- never seen this
- if there's no market for it, it dies, period
meanwhile complex models will make assumptions such as
-austrian deduction is false, but the deductions made by self-interested bureaucrats will be in the "public interest."
-that bureaucrats can no only, on average, outperform the aggregate market in pricing information, but that the particular individuals in CONTROL can do it, those specific ones
- that governance mechanisms themselves are valid institutions of governance
all of which strike me as pretty fucking stupid.
austrians do NOT assume the market perfectly fulfills or optimizes human needs. this is why austrians favor local sovereignty. what austrians DO assume is that oversized bureaucracy is doomed to fail. to defend non-austrian perspectives you must first prove the effectiveness of its bureaucratic institutions
austrianism says that human needs are met by human institutions, and don't belong in econ. you claim that faceless institutions should solve human problems, and further, believe the cost of them interfering in human issues is a net good, rather than a net negative. provei t.
>>69140498
Didnt know that "Georgism" existed.
Its a pretty good system, I have to say.
Since
George
>>69140728
Hayek was honestly far superior.
>>69152008
Goddammit I can't unsee it fuck you Spain
>>69152008
Hahah wtf
>>69144160
Are you fucking retarded?
>>69143425
Look at him
Look at him and laugh
>>69161519
did you even read my post? they've found the MOLECULAR GENETIC MECHANISM FOR INTELLIGENCE
yes, data was involved, but INDUCTION is NOT how you parse molecular data. you NEED a deductive mechanism to make progress, and that's what they've done.
your lack of scientific knowledge betrays you. you think numbers are the only path to knowledge. that's dumb.
>>69162815
german girls are so ugly
>>69161893
You know why mathematical modeling is preferred to verbal models? Because you can precisely say and show what you mean. You say austrian economics doesn't require the assumptions I said above, but if you put your words into calculus without them (and you can do that without losing meaning) it doesn't add up.
The assumptions I stated are only plausible in the long-run, meaning that everyone has had time to readjust his behavior to optimally fit current environmental constraints. Still, in some cases, they fail even in the LR. Take the example of information. In behavioral economics, you find that people can hold systematically wrong beliefs about reality, no matter what you show or argue with them. If you mix this with Industrial Organization (the branch of economics studying how firms behave under imperfect competition), you will find firms exploiting these systematically wrong beliefs to increase the willingness to pay of consumers and, thus, increase profits based on the biases people have.
A stupid example of this is, currently, appeal to nature in advertising. If you say and convince people something is "natural" (whatever that means), many will pay more for the product, despite the argument "natural, hence good" being nonsensical. In fact, in the past many people believed the opposite because "non-natural" products provided a better safeguard to diseases.
>>69161893
And I don't know where you get the idea that economists assume the government is perfect. Most of them are distrustful of it, but they also acknowledge some outcomes can only be achieved if it intervenes correctly, which might or not happen.
>>69163016
Can you show me your source, please?
Induction is not how your parse genetic data? Analyzing data is everywhere and always an inductive analysis.
>>69143425
>he still thinks /pol/ is libertarian
lol 2009 was 7 years ago
>>69164056
https://www.cog-genomics.org/
get educated, normie
>>69163769
if an economist is harnessing government structures to set prices and incentives it MUST assume the government does a better job than thei ndividuals themselves, or than the market, in order to do more good than harm.
what we see is that because the government is worse than the above, it ALWAYS creates harm in a scarcity environment.
>>69163584
model evolution mathematically. please do it nonverbally. we have mutation coefficients which reveal the extent and direction of molecular evolution, but math cannot describe the process itself
you're welcome to try.
again, I'm not saying that the market is the perfect pricing mechanism. but long run distributed knowledge ensures that people who make bad choices get weeded out. the government does the exact opposite, which is why wherever there is government interference, price signals stop functioning.
hey guys
what about mutualistic economics
pls no bully
>>69166310
it's dumb. the reality of human psychology is that we compete, and use whatever avenues we have available to destroy our competition. if we do not harvest this towards production, and instead ban productive copetition, it manifests itself as outright violence, which is what you see in communism. competition manifests itself as rules-fixing, caste systems, etc.
mutualism is a stupid pipe dream. you can't eliminate the reality that people compete.
>>69166310
Quasicommie, bro. Just be Georgist friendo.
>>69164060
After Trump loses it will be back to normal
#CruzSexScandal
Watch busTed preaty much confess about his Lollipop!!!!!!!...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOED4M-WEM
>>69167046
>>69167063
But it seems pretty good to me
Why can't people just regulate things
>>69167455
it seems good to you because you're young and stupid
regulators dont work because they use their authority to extract bribes from industry. when industry needs to pay bribes to function, the main industry becomes seeking bribes. this shuts down the economy. then, the competition shifts to WHO gets to become a government bureaucrat. since you can't become a better bureaucrat by doing better industry (because your job is to regulate) you beocme a more powerful bureaucrat by killing your opposition.
period. this isn't really up for discussion. this is exactly what happens every single time.
>>69159210
Ive mentioned such ideas and always been told by other that it was a contradiction, or oxymoron. They said I had cognitive dissonance to think that a fusion of nationalism and libertarianism would be possible.
>>69140728
dem dick sucking lips
>>69167738
anon I said no bully
are you saying people will never be content with what they have, even if everyone got exactly what they needed
>>69168831
that's exactly the case. our neurology is programmed to always want more. games get boring. marriage partners get old. you don't reread the same old book every day.
niggers have everything they need but they still want to shoot each other, deal drugs, and kill white people and start black lives matter. if you want communism, you're giving THOSE niggers power. communism gives the greediest and most violent people the most power. it will NEVER work.
marx came a century before keynes u fuckin knob
>>69169056
what about in anarchist communities
>>69169412
chronology of this shit image all outta whack yo. (d)evolution may be a non-linear process in some ways but chronology is a thing
>>69140498
No. Economics is meme-tier pseudoscience based on post hoc confabulations and has zero predictive power.
You wanna know how economics works? People with power take wealth from those without power. Occasionally
They give wealth back to those without power to maintain the status quo and prevent popular revolt.
>>69140498
>>69169602
u sounds like a marxist to me bruv (i mean this as a complement)
>>69143425
>This is a libertarian board.
Nigger, do you even /pol/?
>>69141434
This meme is retarded, For one, Keynes was just making a point that there is a utility value to labor, not that destroying wealth creates wealth.
The idea that destroying wealth is good for the economy is actually a concept of free market ideals. It's called planned obsolescence.
>>69169918
>The idea that destroying wealth is good for the economy is actually a concept of free market ideals. It's called planned obsolescence.
No, that's called redistributing wealth from stupid people to clever people. As it should be.
>>69169730
Marx was right about some things. If his theories were complete bullshit they never would have caught on.
The only reason some people are wealthier than others is because the rest of us allow them to be.
Economics fails as a field because it tries to rationalize human behavior. Human behavior is not rational.
>>69170827
>As it should be.
Except for the fact that a strong market requires a strong middle class.
>>69170844
>Economics fails as a field because it tries to rationalize human behavior. Human behavior is not rational.
Humans are rational in the sense that they act on their strongest preference first. That's what "rational actor" means. Not that they're making good decisions. They're making decisions that they want to make.
>>69170934
Does a 'strong middle class' buy junk that breaks down in a few weeks/months? No. Stupid people do that. Stupid people should be poor.
>>69140498
You got is ass backwards kiddo. Austrian economics is nothing but a meme, Marxism is the only thing that can save us, Keynesianism can forestall the inevitable crises.
Keep in mind, Austrians were the ones who came up with Praxeology
>>69169918
>Planned obsolescence is bad
Found the Luddite
>>69171247
>Does a 'strong middle class' buy junk that breaks down in a few weeks/months?
Yes they do. Almost everything you buy is not built to late. Cars a good example of planned obsolescence. Ford even said it's biggest regret as a company was the original F150 because of how durable and lasting it was.
>>69165246
Interesting site. From what I've read, their method is merely testing for correlations and they have not found anything yet because they do not have a sample to do so. Nonetheless, even though it is interesting, you oversold it.
Economists do not have a black and white vision of government. Some policies work better than others, some countries have better governments than others, etc. The conclusion that the government always create harm under scarcity comes directly from the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics. Under the assumptions required to meet that theorem, the economy will be in its best possible state by itself. If the government changes anything, it is bound to make things worse. However, these assumptions are way too strong and this theorem is only considered as a benchmark, not as description of what's actually going on.
Statistics is math. If you have a weird statistical model like machine learning guys do, you are describe reality mathematically. The site you mentioned presented me with a lot of studies trying to describe what's going on mathematically. Evolution can be described mathematically as a LR phenomena using constrained optimization. In addition, evolutionary game theory is describing evolution mathematically, which are constrained optimizations interacting with one another.
Price signals can stop functioning by themselves. This is very true in the short-run but less true in the long-run. That's why, in the LR, neoclassicals tend to agree more with austrians.
>>69171381
>Destroying resources and wealth for short term gain will be good for the economy even in the long run
Found the dolt.
>>69171247
>Person with given income spends a proportion on capital goods
>Can only afford low to mid-range capital goods
>Capital goods wear out, have to continuously replace them
>Never able to save enough to increase family or community wealth
The world isn't a snapshot you retard, the middle class is built on acquiring wealth and rising above living paycheck to paycheck. That requires time to develop and can be stifled by raising costs at the lower income levels.
>>69169546
>>69169412
Literally every economic school of though has been trying to disprove marx since him and failed when implemented. Instability and crisis is inherent to capitalism, neo-liberals and Keynesians learned this the hard way.
![Adam_Smith_The_Muir_portrait[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/nTzJbHD.jpg "Adam_Smith_The_Muir_portrait[1].jpg")
There is only one right answer
Since the exchange of money involves 2 people it should therefore be subject to morality
Free market sounds nice but ignores reality
Unrestrained capitalism is ultimately wrong
but at the same time socialism and communism fucking suck
There is another way but it involves subjecting economics to Christian mortality and really could never work in 2016
>ban usury
>restrict prices based on what is determined to be fair
>provide fair wages, 40hrs work a man should be able to support his family
>take out 90% of women from the workforce and have them be stay at home moms
I believe if you made these changes but largely kept the capitalist framework in place you would have a successful economy
It wouldn't maximize profit but people could have decent lives
>>69171781
Half of the retards on this board have never even read his works. He would not of approved of modern free market economies. When capitalism was born, it was more about industriousness and not greed. The "greed is good" morality that came about in the 70s and 80s really transformed capitalism.
Part 2 of wealth of nations actually describes the main problem with modern capitalism: opulence.
>>69171336
>Look mom! I trolled them again. Lulz!
>>69171426
>Yes they do. Almost everything you buy is not built to late. Cars a good example of planned obsolescence. Ford even said it's biggest regret as a company was the original F150 because of how durable and lasting it was.
My car has certainly lasted long enough. 11 years and still running. If dumbfucks are buying cars that don't last, whether it's Ford or whatever - they deserve to get gipped.
Don't you know? "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
>>69171649
>That requires time to develop and can be stifled by raising costs at the lower income levels.
Sowwy is the mean, bad capitalist forcing you to buy his bad stuffs?? :(((
Maybe he should save up for the high end goods if the low end goods aren't worth a damn.
>>69170844
I once read a paper on folk economics. It stated that laymen tend to have a very marxian view of the economy. They tend to see trade and inequality as zero-sum. This is due to the fact humans evolved in a Malthusian environment, where growth in the long-run was 0 (people lived like this until ~1650, after which England started showing very small long-run growth rates). This means that if anybody grew rich, he had to be taking something from somebody else, or failing to cooperate in any way. That's why marxism is so appealing because it feels true.
>>69171911
Have you never heard of glorious market socialism?
>>69172059
You sound like a sore loser.
One thing that does need to change is land monopoly. The government should capture ground rents.
There's nothing to complain about besides that, unless you're a dirty Marxist that believes in the fucking labor theory of value.
>>69172091
>Don't you know? "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
All cars have a planned obsolescence lifetime.
>>69171750
Marx was disproved in his lifetime and Gramsci is a big deal because he is imagined to have salvaged Marx, which he attempted by jettisoning the central historical thinking that Marx depended on for his claim to scientific certainty.
>>69172269
no
but Ive been taking a look at the economies of medieval europe which combine christianity with a regulated capitalist style economy…its borderline socialism but I don't know if I could call it that
No. Evolution doesn't exist and Austrian is the worst, and not the oldest, and is the source of all our problems. Muh Zionistic Zubbly-Zide
>>69171478
the causal pathways are obvious. whatever makes a brain function, those associated SNPs increase that. some of them increase interconnectivity. some of them are repeats. some of them increase brain size. and so on and so forth.
I didn't oversell it. but BG isn't the only cutting edge research. intelligence is NOT beamed into your brain directly from a divine 7th dimension, who woudl have fucking guessed?
and guess what, induction cannot reveal these kinds of truths. induction cannot reveal ANY truth, it is merely evidence that backs up causation which we can reason.
>government
I already described what is going on. governments are filled with people whose positions are not accountable to the consequences of their actions. they can actively do harm and it will entrench their power. systematically governments produce bad decision makers, even if any single decision might end up being good.
>math
your mathematical descriptions are not completely mathematical though. you said verbal reasoning was inferior, but we only discover mathematical models of verbal descriptions DECADES after it has been first reasoned verbally.
mathematics is just an abstraction of reality. verbal reasoning is also an abstraction of reality, but verbal reasoning directly models our human cognitive processes. you could not model evolution mathematically before describing it verbally.
and as is, your mathematical descriptions are incomplete. they can model in dividual evolutionary processes, but they can't model the CONCEPT. so try again.
you're a smart guy, but you've got some really weird hangups, dude
>>69151558
>hard sciences don't use statistics
You're a fucking retard. Even dumb laymen have heart of quantum mechanics. There's literally a branch of physics called "statistical physics." Off yourself.
>>69172318
>You sound like a sore loser.
You don't even know anything about and you're already building some sort of strawman of me in your head. Sad.
This has nothing to do with marxism or labor theory. A market works best with strong consumers. If we had markets that you describe, based purely on greed and trying to take money from people, the system as a whole would not develop or produce more wealth. In fact, and individual might have more real wealth in terms of resources and quality of life in a system with a stronger economy than a very rich person with high relative wealth to the masses that are poor.
>>69172656
>>69151558
Point one: All science uses statistics
Point two: you can't use statistics in a heuristic method to predict market forces. The natural world has order; laws of science. Human behavior and markets have a large degree of unpredictability.
>>69172656
I didn't say hard sciences did not use statistics. I said hard sciences do not use such sophisticated methods because they do not need it.
>>69172698
So you're just a demand-side freak. I see.
My contention is that we don't need to give consumers more money. I agree that we need strong consumers. But to me, that means "smart" consumers. And the way we get smart consumers is by giving them the middle finger and telling them to take care of themselves. And by "we" I mean the government. They should find private services to help them, e.g. certification companies (certify a car make&model which is not a piece of junk).
& I swear to Christ if you say "but they can just buy good ratings" then I'm done talking to you because it would show that you are a retard.
>>69172267
growth can be zero sum in many situations. growth depends on a variety of stable institutions. when governments, lower classes, or invaders sap or destroy these institutions, growth does become zero sum
try growing the afghan economy and tell me growth isn't zero sum. you're not going to grow the afghan economy without killing lots of afghans and raising their iq. period.
>>69172091
>Maybe he should save up for the high end goods if the low end goods aren't worth a damn.
The low-income family isn't going to be able to save up that much money, especially without basic goods that enhance their ability to make money or live.
This isn't abstract theory, this is literally a core concept of development economics. Poor people have less to save and the less durable their goods are, the more income has to be diverted to replacing depreciation. This limits the development of the middle class.
>>69172091
>Look mom! I trolled them again. Lulz!
Not trolling m8. Praxeology is literally indefensible as a relevant economic theory.
>Sowwy is the mean, bad capitalist forcing you to buy his bad stuffs?? :(((
>Maybe he should save up for the high end goods if the low end goods aren't worth a damn.
Also, growth isn't possible without consumption. Most workers spend large portions of their income, if this didn't happen, you get scenarios like japan. The rich on the other hand, while investing much of their money, also keep more of it saved in bank accounts. Businesses make the most money when prices are high, labor costs are low, and productivity is high. However it is difficult to get all these things at once, But you can actually accomplish this by just giving loans and credit to workers (higher wealth inequality leads to more vigourous marketing of loans by banks since the savings of wealthy clients boosts deposists and thus liquidity), exactly what happened in the US in the 70's, leading to the crash of 08 when workers were unable to pay these loans. Just another example of how capitalism creates crises.
>>69173050
>hard sciences don't use sophisticated methods
Yes they fucking do. Stop talking out of your ass.
>>69172399
In what way was Marx disproved?
>>69173067
development economics is the biggest sham in existence. poor people are poor because they have a low iq and their low iq leads them to create parasitic institutions. it has nothing to do with their markets.
let's take a bunch of 50 iq pygmies, put them in ottowa, and see if "market forces" manage to teach them to read. biology creates markets, the flow of causation is one way.
>>69172480
>medieval europe
you sure that's not just feudalism? That usually leads to more political instability.
But regardless, market socialism is when workers own the enterprises they are a part of, this helps to solve many of the contradictions of capitalism, and can introduce more human business decisions when every worker gets a say, although government intervention may still be necessary.
>>69140498
>trusting economists in the first place
modern soothsayers who are too chickenshit to be politicians
>>69173067
>The low-income family isn't going to be able to save up that much money, especially without basic goods that enhance their ability to make money or live.
Then maybe they should get some marketable skills and quit being low-value. Starting a business isn't for no-skill, no-money wannabe leeches.
> Poor people have less to save and the less durable their goods are, the more income has to be diverted to replacing depreciation. This limits the development of the middle class.
No. Look. Either the durable good is a better value than a series of non-durable goods, or it isn't. There's no in-between. People have to make that choice.
For example. Many poor people buy packages of disposable safety razors. The full thing with handle and all, you know.
I buy replaceable blades only. I spend more up front on the handle, but the savings I get from only having to buy blades makes it a worthy investment.
Some people either are not smart enough to make such a decision, or they don't care. Either way, they deserve to not have those savings.
>>69173355
The iron law of wages is hilariously wrong.
>>69173301
oh no, japan is forced to develop highly efficient markets for conspicuous consumption because thrifty spenders don't allow commodities producers to make easy profits. how awful.
I mean, it's AWFUL that japanese consumption skews towards education and healthcare. how, how fucking AWFUL
oh, wait, you keep posting marx, I see now. you're just a retard.
>>69172059
who could have figured globalism would have become a route for companies to push others out of the market. Which is why the greedy moral system was able to thrive. Under the guise of claiming superior business, companies act anti-competitively through every possible medium. Which is a net loss for the welfare of the consumer.
>>69171336
Keynes will save us all lol :^)
>>69172610
Of course intelligence has to come from somewhere. This is old nature/nurture debate. I'm on the fence on this one and these studies do seem to suggest genetics play a role, as I would have expected.
On induction, if you want to take that path, you get no truth from it, in the sense you will never be 100% sure of anything. But you must think of science as reducing our explanations and predictions of the world from "world is complex, anything can happen" to "I'm more or less sure that A or B might happen". One is much more precise than the other. That precision is knowledge. If you correctly identified likelihoods, you have found some "truth" about the world.
On government, you forget that people have social preferences as well. We actually care for others, even though we care more about ourselves. This gives governments some leeway for policies to be effective. This is not perfect but it works. Compare how public services in some countries seem to be better than others (nordic countries vs mine, for instance). This is largely explained by how much people trust each other, how they relate to each other, how do they feel they must obey norms, etc. This is cultural and is under the umbrella of "social preferences".
Nonetheless, you must design government agencies in such a way as to align incentives of bureaucrats with those of the public. It is possible to do, namely if you put agencies checking each other. This way, even narrowly self interested individuals will think twice before abusing power.
>>69172610
Verbal reasoning is more natural to us because it is the language with which we think. However, it is much more fluid in meaning that mathematical reasoning and that is why you should be precise in what you mean by converting the former to the latter. I will give you an example. If Keynes or Marx wrote their books with equations and brief definitions only, scholars would not be still meaninglessly arguing over what they meant. This does not happen in current research in economics. I will be honest with you. I don't understand what the hell they are saying 50% of the time.
>>69173056
I did not say growth could not be zero-sum. In fact, I said the opposite. Today, in general it isn't. Nothing guarantees it will never be again, so the example you gave is perfectly plausible.
What's the difference between all these philosophizes?
People spout shit about how the other is shit but they never explain it
>>69173304
You are misquoting me again.
>>69174352
genetics determines more than 80% of variability. this isn't really up for debate any more.
>induction
but you never arrive at what will happen without understanding WHY. the WHY is not explained by induction, ever. without the why you can't refine your models.
we understood genes before we discovered DNA. numbers didnt help us do that. we understood the higgs boson before we had the "inductive evidence" for it. we understood relativity before we even had proof for it. and now, 90 years later, einstein is being proven right over and over again.
deduction is our primary tool it is a "model" or reality. induction is the tool of deduction, but merely dilineates the dimensions of the components.
>gov
you just admitted that nordic institutions are only more effective because the PEOPLE are smarter and more trustworthy. it's BIOLOGICAL capital.
afghanistan has a constitution, they have a parliament. but the constitution and the parliament aren't what matters. what matters is whether people will kill each other or not. afghanis are subhuman, there's no way we can make them less animalistic via bureaucratic structure. bureaucracies can be bad or less bad, but they can NEVER improve the people.
>>69174675
Basically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics
>>69174441
mathematical reasoning has no way of coding for generalities though. because math is an abstraction of reality. our mind can quantify certain qualia better than math.
evolution for example, has the embedded concept of fitness. you can't mathematically encode fitness because sometimes fitness is passing on the MOST genes, sometimes fitness is passing on higher quality genes, and the concept of fitness changes and takes different forms. that's impossible to code mathematically. you literally cannot explain this with math.
>>69173769
This behavior causes deflation and is leading to high levels of private debt (the best indicator for when a country is going to go into recession), as well as low growth. Microeconomics isn't a good way to judge an economy.
The japense corporate culture and labor market has also led to many negative social problems, such as low marriage and birth rates as well as general alienation.
>current year
>still believe capitalism is the best system
come on son
Do you have any articles for further reading about the energy-based currency you mentioned? I'm not inept;
Please post something so that I can read it later. It's 3AM but I've been trying to fall asleep for 4 hours a
I'm improving
>>69175095
Are you talking about these correlations? They do not mean exactly what you are saying, but it is still 60% of the variability (0.77^2). But, these are for people whose genotype is almost identical. If you look at two siblings, you will only find it is about 14% (0.38^2). Ignoring problems of sample size and assuming this is actual capturing a causal effect, there seems to be a lot of randomness, even if intelligence is largely genetic. There is a gap of 46% you cannot explain for children coming from the same parents. Also, don't forget this is only IQ.
Science doesn't deal with why's, just how's. There is a difference between the two. When I talk about causal effects, I'm talking about the how's.
It's amazing how you can immediately say that nordic institutions are better because of biological capital. How can you be so sure? In game theory, it's perfectly possible to have multiple equilibria: a set with bad outcomes and a set with good outcomes. It can perfectly be the case that some idiosyncrasy in nordic cultures made them that way. A small shock (any random event) that happened to them that through several iterations of interactions made them converge to a good equilibrium. It could be biological, I'm not saying it isn't. However, the fact is that we don't know. You are too sure of yourself.
>>69171426
Nigga shut the fuck up. I have 5 cars and this one has the least miles.
Cars are insanely better now
Keynes is jew
Mises is jew
Georgist is the best system and encourages land development and industry
>>69179813
Mises was right about everything though. And he supported Georgism as long as land could be appraised correctly (which he could not determine at the time).
>>69179813
>>69180170
Nvm that was Hayek who said that, not Mises. But Hayek > Mises
>>69179813
Georgism is mid-tier. At least recognizes how bullshit rent seeking is.
>>69180170
>Mises
>Right about anything
lol
>>69140498
Yeah. Thats why I like John Kaisch hes the most Austrian to me. Too bad hes just way too ugly to ever get majority vote
>>69181188
The obvious truth to life, the universe, and everything is this:
Austrian/Georgist synthesis; nationalist geolibertarian minarchist government which redistributes land rents to morally upright families on a per child basis. This is what we need to save the white race.
>>69181432
>morality
>white race
oh boy, you really got me going
>>69178240
>>69178240
environment, in this case, doesn't necessary equate to upbringing. it could be unseen genetic effects, pollutants, etc. environment is a catchall for unexplained variance.
>biological capital
systems converge on equilibria because equilibria are set by means of behavior. their mean behavior is expressed because of their biology. random events don't alter equilibria over hundreds of millions of iterations. don't be ridiculous.
>>69181964
By morally upright I mean: not criminals, not single moms, not leeches, not degenerates in general.
Do you have a problem with that bro?
If we don't put a moral test on the citizen's dividend then you have what we have now - dysgenics.
>>69182593
>By morally upright I mean: not criminals, not single moms, not leeches, not degenerates in general
Capitalism encourages all those things, you're just going to make things worse.
>>69183165
Oh right. You're the Marxist troll.
Come on, son. Let's go for a ride.
>>69183366
>namefags as Free Market Fanatic
>I'm the troll
I think I'd prefer you join me on a nice winter getaway
>>69145359
GTFO newfag
>>69184531
Genetically inferior low-IQ insecure stormweenie detected.
>>69171911
>>69172480
>ban usury
You dun fucked up, son. Interest is compensation based on the time value of money - even without inflation, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Money now is preferred to money later - there are opportunities to be had now and not later.
The jews got to where they are because the Church banned usury and so Christians could not be bankers. So the jews became the bankers.
>"fair" prices
Set by perfect bureaucrats who have both omniscience and omnibenevolence? And with people forced at gunpoint to produce items that cost more to produce than your perfect bureaucrats deem "fair"?
>"fair wages"
Kill yourself. A useless human has no "right" to the product of the labor of others if he cannot provide enough value to others to sustain his own life, much less to perpetuate his genetically defective line.
You do not grasp even basic economics, so kill yourself before you ever type a word about the subject again.
>>69186559
Dis nigga real af desu senpai. Niggas ain't got no inherent fair wage, nigga.
Dat be like Steve Jobs wearing fuccboi clothing, nigga.
>>69170844
You're some special kind of stupid. People aren't equal, random chance exists, and leaps of faith pay off some times. Some people are richer than others because they make different choices and start different places. Even raised in a commie collective without parents. people are unique.
>>69145359
>Fuck the white working class
Are you fucking retarded you double nigger?
protip : all schools of economic thought are shit
there can never be a free market and capitalism is inherently shit because it rewards people who just happened to be alive sooner
usurers and marxists should both be the first against the wall though
>Austrian
Greenspan was more or less Austrian, look at how much his "deregulation" fucked everything up
>>69186913
No, that's why I don't need the government to hold my hand you pathetic loser.
>>69187201
>Central bank
>Austrian
Wew lad...
>>69187738
The property rights that allow you're precious free market to exist exist because of the state. The capitalist needs the state just as much as any poor person on welfare.
>>69188427
I'm not an anarchist bud.
>>69143843
You should probably leave, you massive fucking retard
chicago > austrian
keynesian = garbage tier
>>69188576
But you're basically saying you only support government when it benefits rich people.
>>69145968
You'd better hope that taxation actually exists unless you want to be cucked by the monopoly man (you won't be him faggot get over it)
>>69189030
Let me give you an outline of some policies.
1. Citizens must be of European heritage, swear to defend the constitution and principles thereof (incl. capitalism & property rights), and they must volunteer themselves to be drafted into the military. Only citizens can vote. People that do not swear to defend the constitution and volunteer for service will not have political rights.
2. Citizens are entitled to a citizens' dividend. Married citizens of good standing will receive a dividend for themselves and per child.
3. The citizens' dividend will be the budget surplus from land rents collected. Everyone that holds title to a piece of land must pay a market value rent for that piece of land to the government. Any surplus after govt. operations will be distributed to the citizens as a dividend...
That benefits all citizens bro. Not just rich people. Leftists will be physically removed and people will do it so that they get their dividend.
>>69164060
/pol/ wasn't made until 2011. And it replaced /new/, a board deleted for being full of nazis. Incidentally, it was libertarian for about 2 months until someone started naziposting again and people realized it wasn't bannable anymore.
>>69189828
Ok, so you only support government for rich people and spooky people.
Also, that doesn't seem very free market of you
>>69189828
>people who do not swear to agree with me will not have political rights
I hope you're not under the delusion that anybody can take you seriously if you advocate this, regardless of your position.
Swap Chicagoan and Keynesian desu
>>69190271
By political rights I mean voting & petition rights. Also the ability to actually serve in public office. By "leftists will be physically removed"... uh, that was hyperbole bro. They should only be removed if they engage in actual subversive activity (weather underground kind of shit).
Anyway, that's exactly the stipulation that I meant. Citizenship can be revoked for engaging in subversive activities. That's necessary to keep the country safe.
Universal enfranchisement doesn't work, bro. Surely you realize this by now.
>>69143425
This was always a white supremacist board, how new are you?
>>69190671
Sounds an awful lot like stalinism to me.
>>69190671
If you have the ability to take other people's rights away then someone else will be able to do the same to you.
The most common sense thing to do for voting is a flat law that says either you're over age 25 or you've been in the military or held a fulltime job for at least 3 years.
There's a reason why there's a minimum age limit on the presidency.
>>69191229
Mate, I'm a free market fanatic. I'm very liberal. A fascistic essence is necessary to keep it that way, however.
Universal suffrage leads to gibsmedat.
Economic freedom must be hardcoded into the constitution.
>>69191383
A free market where the citizens receive payment from the government that is taken taxes to landowners and all "subversive elements" are removed.
I couldn't have thought of a more free market and liberal society myself.
>>69191383
That is the most convoluted word salad I've ever scene.
>>69191375
Voting wouldn't be a right. It would be given in exchange for the promise of military service. Draft wouldn't be mandatory. So the state needs soldiers, right? Promise to protect the state, and you get a vote and a dividend. It's the perfect setup bruv.
>>69191727
>A free market where the citizens receive payment from the government that is taken taxes to landowners and all "subversive elements" are removed.
Land "owners" don't own land. They use land. Land is owned by the state and the people who defend the land, soldiers and potential soldiers. These soldiers and potential soldiers get a dividend in return.
FYI the "taxing" of land values does not affect markets. Search for 'economic rent.'
>>69172318
You sound like an arrogant know-it-all.
>>69192442
narcissism is the nectar of the gods tbqh
>>69140498
Causing problems is easier than working on them. Therefore it's easy to create a demand for work by causing problems.
But it's impossible to supply work without a hope to achieve success, there needs to be a supply of ambitious workers.
If too many problems exist the supply will dry up because no one will have ambition. They won't have hope to fix the problems.
>>69192442
I don't know it all, and I'm very open to having my views changed.
It just sickens me when I see people that want the government to nanny them.
Pathetic people in the same category as women and niggers.
Good men should be repulsed by the idea of depending on the government.
>>69140498
Kek, it isn't accurate at all. Stop learning Economics from Youtube and books written for dumb people in the general populace with no actual economic modelling in them.
Post-Keynesianism is the truth.
>>69192754
>Therefore
Shouldn't have wrote that.
>>69160317
you havent read economics if you think its jewish
all the wacky fantasy tier schools that ruin society are made by jews though, funnily enough :')
>>69159210
>humanity living as a bunch of petty tribes like the niggers in africa
>>69179813
>Keynes
>jew
Fuck off you stupid nigger.
>>69143425
here's you're (you)
