/biz/ - Business & Finance

bump

>>216737

this seems more like a political discussion than anything

libertarian fag pls go

>>216752
>this seems more like a political discussion than anything
It's clearly an economic discussion.

>libertarian fag pls go
Get off my board then, poverty worshiper.

Who let you out of /pol/?

At the time the government was trying to repay the debt caused by the first world war, in order to NOT have a huge national debt like we do.

What got them was they adjusted too quickly and triggered a panic- which directly lead to the depression.

This isn't really conspiracy or anything, you just have to pay attention in history and economics classes to know this.

But the result of their failure? We now have a trillion dollar national debt, because they couldn't pay for WWI let alone WWII. And all of the interest on that debt, plus the additional spending needed to revive the country's economy.

>>216755
>The great depression was completely created by the government.

>it's clearly an economic discussion

>>216760
>Who let you out of /pol/?
Get the fuck off my board you economic illiterate piece of shit.

>At the time the government was trying to repay the debt caused by the first world war,
Yes, it was a government problem.

>What got them was they adjusted too quickly and triggered a panic- which directly lead to the depression.
Yes, it was a government problem.

>This isn't really conspiracy or anything
I never said that.

>you just have to pay attention in history and economics classes to know this.
Why would I force myself to be brainwashed by a bunch of corrupt statists with an agenda?

>>216770
It CLEARLY is an economic discussion.

>>pol

>>216779
It's a politics agenda. An ideological discussion.

The notion that "government causes everything" is not something steeped in reality or a practical economic approach. Economics is about developing models to describe each sector of the economy. Each sector has its own models that it follows, but they also escape the models and do unpredictable things as well.

There is not an economic model in existence today supporting the "all government must go away forever" viewpoint.

Social Darwinism is an ideology. Not an economic model.

>>216789
>It's a politics agenda. An ideological discussion.
All economics is an ideological discussion.

Stop being an idiot.

Do you have a refutation of my thread or not?

>The notion that "government causes everything" is not something steeped in reality or a practical economic approach
Nobody ever said this.

>Economics is about developing models to describe each sector of the economy.
No, economic models describe the entire economy as a whole.

>There is not an economic model in existence today
There's plenty, including austrian economics.

>Social Darwinism is an ideology.
Who the FUCK said they were a social darwinist?
What the fuck are you even talking about?

>>216789
Could you stop shitposting btw

Do you have a refutation to my argument you anti-social psychopath?

>>216796
>No, economic models describe the entire economy as a whole
Are you familiar with the difference between micro and macroeconomics? Are you even familiar with the numerous models within microeconomics that describe each type of business as they're expected to function?

No. The study of economics does not usually try to describe the entire economy at once, especially not with anything as broad as "the entire economy would be better if there were no regulations on any sector".

>>216796
>All economics is an ideological discussion.
Maybe philosophical wank like the Austrian school, but real economics can actually discussed in terms of experiments and research.

>Nobody ever said this.
Is that not what you believe? Don't you think the government is responsible for economic inefficiencies?

>>216805
>Are you even familiar with the numerous models within microeconomics that describe each type of business as they're expected to function?

Are you even familiar with the law of supply and demand?
Do you actually think this law is different in any way when talking about different economic subjects?

>especially not with anything as broad as "the entire economy would be better if there were no regulations on any sector".
Then why when you study every sector of the economy you realize that the state makes things worse.

>>216812
>Maybe philosophical wank like the Austrian school
>BAWWWW STOP USING ECONOMIC LOGIC

If you don't want to debate economics you can leave you know.

>Is that not what you believe?
Of course not you psychopathic liar.

>Don't you think the government is responsible for economic inefficiencies?
Yes, it is.

>>216816
>If you don't want to debate economics you can leave you know.
But the Austrian school doesn't count as economics. It's not a social science. It's philosophy. And not even good philosophy at that. >>>/lit/

>>216800
>quoting Rothbard
mother of mercy

>>216826
Lest not forget that the basic tenets of Austrian school are "proof matters shit all" and "things are like this because I think they should be like this"

>>216826
>But the Austrian school doesn't count as economics.
>it proves my theories wrong so it doesn't count

If you had any argument to debate us with you would have done so already. The fact you haven't done so shows you have nothing and the facts we post scare you.

You have nothing.

> It's not a social science. It's philosophy.
It IS a social science. It's basic economics.

Stay angry with no argument.

>>216827
>mother of mercy
Please leave you economically illiterate child.

>>216834
>Lest not forget that the basic tenets of Austrian school are "proof matters shit all"
Except it's not

lol all you people have are pathetic strawman arguments,

the austrian school must really scare you

So nothing leftists?

Seriously nothing?

You're going to keep defending FDR/Hoover and the massive poverty he imposed on your people?

Why are you such sycophantic bootlickers?

>>216840
>If you had any argument to debate us with you would have done so already. The fact you haven't done so shows you have nothing and the facts we post scare you.
I'm not debating you because you're not discussing economics. You're trying to pass off your philosophical beliefs as equivalent to actual science, and I'm merely trying to correct you and nudge in the right direction. >>>/lit/

>It IS a social science.
You are confused. Look up the definition of what a social science is. Austrian school doesn't cut it.

>>216760
repay to debt to whom

>>216845

what are some successful libertarian economies

why havent people introduced libertarian economics

>>216856
>I'm not debating you because you're not discussing economics.
Except I am.

We're discussion economic policies FDR and Hoover enacted during the great depression.

If you don't like it, you can leave the economics board and never return.

>You're trying to pass off your philosophical beliefs
Philosophical beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with this.
I don't know where you're getting this from.

Are you seriously this upset you have no argument here?

>>>>/lit/
You're the batshit leftist, go back there.

>Austrian school doesn't cut it.
It's the definition of a social science.
Are you denying human beings act.
Are you denying supply and demand?

Why don't you kill yourself?

>>216864
>what are some successful libertarian economies
America during the gilded age.
VERY successful actually.
I would say it was 95% free market and 5% statism.

:)

>why havent people introduced libertarian economics
Why hasn't the world embraced atheism even though it's a fact?

Why does most of the world deny evolution?

Because most people are stupid cultists who believe whatever their government tells them.

Like you.

>>216845
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
it assumes that all humans are robots that always follow their programming. Oh, and and it is supposed to replace the scientific method? Fucking lol.

>>216868
>it assumes that all humans are robots that always follow their programming.
>it assumes that all human beings are rational

Except it doesn't do that at all.

>Oh, and and it is supposed to replace the scientific method?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHA
Holy shit, no it's not.

Does MATH replace the scientific method?
lol holy fuck kill yourself

>>216865
>Philosophical beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with this.
>I don't know where you're getting this from.
Austrian school is philosophy, not science. Hence, >>>/lit/. It's not as bad as you think--the rule against Ayn Rand has apparently been lifted. So go there if you want to discuss philosophy.

>It's the definition of a social science.
No, it literally is not. Read the Social Science article on Wikipedia and be enlightened.

>>216873
>Praxeology is considered by its adherents to be the deductive study of human action based on the fact that humans engage in purposeful behavior

not even math, just liberal and weak interpretations of things

>>216871

is that why it had a statist protectionist policy that favored government assistance to corporations?

>>216877
>Austrian school is philosophy, not science. Hence, >>>/lit/.

Repeating this lie doesn't change the fact you have no argument

YOU

HAVE

NO

ARGUMENT

If you don't want to discuss hoover and FDR's policies during the 1920s and 1930s then you can go back to your leftist homeland on /lit/ and learn about marxism.
If you don't like economics you can leave.

>enlightened.
But I'm not a fedora wearing liberal like you.

>>216882
>not even math, just liberal and weak interpretations of things
Oh wow you're actually denying these facts and the implications from them?
my sides

>>216883
>is that why it had a statist protectionist policy that favored government assistance to corporations?
The same destructive policies that were dramatically increased in the early early 1930s?

>>216883
Reminder that the USA is corporatist rather than capitalist.

So now that's that's over.

Can we PLEASE discuss the great depression, without asspained leftists complaining that we're using logic and science too much?

>>216886

pol just leave

>>216886
>Repeating this lie doesn't change the fact you have no argument
But I'm not lying. If you disagree, feel free to explain to us why the Austrian school is science and not philosophy. Protip: look up the respective definitions or 'philosophy' and 'science' before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

>>216902
>pol just leave
>economics please leave

Go back to /pol/ if you want to discuss politics, leftist.

>>216904
>But I'm not lying. If you disagree, feel free to explain to us why the Austrian school is science and not philosophy
Because it has nothing at all to do with philosophy.
That's libertarianism, that's the philosophy.
Austrian school is economics.

Now that that's over.

Do you have any refutation about hoover and FDR during the 1920s and 30s?

I didn't think so.

>before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
LOL
You keep shitposting all while having no argument AT ALL.

Do you have ANYTHING at all to day about the great depression and the economic policies leading up to it?

ANYTHING?

Go back to /lit/ you child.

>>216890
>The same destructive policies that were dramatically increased in the early early 1930s?

yes my friend, the very same, your example of a libertarian state experienced massive gdp and influence growth as a direct result of government intervention in economic issues

please provide a legitimate libertarian state, then maybe people will take your version of economics as something worth a shit

Why are leftists this angry they have no argument?

I challenge you to say ONE thing about the great depression which refutes OP's post.

ONE.

>>216913
>your example of a libertarian state experienced massive gdp and influence growth as a direct result of government intervention in economic issues
Almost every other nation on earth had the same tariffs and protectionism.

America was the country that had free markets domestically.
Basically no other country had this.

>please provide a legitimate libertarian state
Okay.
http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

>then maybe people will take your version of economics as something worth a shit
People who know what they're talking about already do.

The gilded age had a gold standard and created a massive amount of wealth for the average citizen.

>leftists doing nothing but shitposting

My sides are in orbit.

>>216911
>Because it has nothing at all to do with philosophy.
It is a philosophy of economics. It IS philosophy. Austrian "economics" rejects the scientific method, and thus cannot be classified as a proper school of economics. This isn't complicated at all. I think >>>/lit/ or even >>>/pol/ would be a better fit for you, as this board is for economics (NOT philosophy) and business.

>>216921
>examples of anarchy without chaos

>somalia

epic. simply..EPIC!!

ONE HOUR AND 15 MINUTES INTO THE THREAD AND COUNTLESS POSTS LATER AND SO FAR LEFTIST SHILLS HAVEN'T POSTED ONE SINGLE THING ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION OR FDR

NOT ONE

LOL

>>216934
>somalia XD

>he's actually this mad there are countless examples of market anarchism, which were far more peaceful than most states even today

Oh god my sides

If you want to shitpost go back to /b/ you angsty child.

>>216933
>Austrian "economics" rejects the scientific method
So does mathematics.

>It is a philosophy of economics.
No, that's libertarianism.

YOU AREN'T ARGUING ANYTHING AT ALL

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THE GREAT DEPRESSION

YOU ARE POSTING OFFTOPIC BULLSHIT

GET THE FUCK OUT

>>216933
Also economics is about logic, not science.

Science takes a backseat to logic when dealing with economics.

Austrian economics deals with the logical implications of human action.

You don't even believe in supply and demand, go back to /lit/

Can we talk about the great depression now?

>>216953
>So does mathematics.
Yes, but mathematics doesn't make any claims about the real world. That's the domain of physics (a SCIENCE).

>No, that's libertarianism.
No, Austrian "economics" is precisely what I said it was: a particular philosophical school focused on economic topics.

>>216961
>Also economics is about logic, not science.
Science is based on logic, you buffoon. The difference is that the scientific method carries the additional constraint that assertions be falsifiable and testable, which is where Austrianism falls short.

>>216975
>Yes, but mathematics doesn't make any claims about the real world.
Uh, are you actually denying you can't know anything about the world by using logic?

You're actually saying economics is physics?
Lol, you're clearly a shill.

Go back to your containment board on /lit/.

>a particular philosophical school focused on economic topics.
No, that's libertarianism.
Austrian economics deals with the logical implications of human action. ie: economics.

Just repeating this same garbage again and again won't change the fact you are wrong about the great depression.

The damage control coming from you only makes my penis harder.

You have nothing.

>Science is based on logic, you buffoon.
I KNOW you faggot.


>the additional constraint that assertions be falsifiable and testable
The point austians make is that it's impossible to test economics in a laboratory setting. So all we have is the logical implications of human action.

Wait you don't even know this.

>>216961
>Supply and demand
Out of curiosity, do you think supply and demand is a really simple line graph that you can understand right out of high school algebra class?

If you do, you probably have, at best, less than an entry-level understanding of the science of economics. You haven't even graduated past Econ 101 at a college level.

I mean really. They teach you in Econ 101 about a few varying models and what they're supposed to apply to. There's not really an axiom for supply and demand. Supply, demand, and prices are all related to a ton of different variables that the models attempt to describe, but can't always describe.

Prices can actually rise or fall in response to an increase in demand. It depends on a lot of things and the question you always have to ask is what model are you using.

>>216975
Reminder you have no argument against OPs post and everything you say from now on will be considered shitposting in an attempt for people to forget that.

>>216992
>Out of curiosity, do you think supply and demand is a really simple line graph that you can understand right out of high school algebra class?
No.

>If you do, you probably have, at best, less than an entry-level understanding of the science of economics. You haven't even graduated past Econ 101 at a college level.
Good because I don't believe that.
Strawman harder, child.

>Supply, demand, and prices are all related to a ton of different variables that the models attempt to describe
I know.

>>216994

daily reminder that you are the only one espousing libertarian beliefs in this thread and the OP is you

>>217002
Reminder you have no argument against OPs post and everything you say from now on will be considered shitposting in an attempt for people to forget that.

>and the OP is you
Daily reminder I never denied that.

Daily reminder you have done nothing but spew memes and shitposts this entire thread. You can't even use proper punctuation.

Go back to /b/

Honestly though, holy fuck.

You try to start a thread about economic history on /biz/ and it turns into a /pol/ thread.

Are leftists THIS MAD they have no actual argument.

Lol

>>217019
this was a /pol/ thread from the get-go. you can't even begin to deny this.

>You're actually saying economics is physics?
I'm arguing that economics is a social science, not philosophy. For some reason this seems unacceptable to you. That's unfortunate, but it's not our job to accommodate your mental deficiencies.

>Austrian economics deals with the logical implications of human action. ie: economics.
Yes, it deals with economics. But it is not a substitute for real economics.

>The point austians make is that it's impossible to test economics in a laboratory setting. So all we have is the logical implications of human action.
Which is fine, but useless to us as scientists. >>>/lit/

Look, it's clear that you are the maddest person in this thread and really frustrated with this board, so why not go somewhere were you would fit in better? >>>/pol/ >>>/lit/

>>217023

JIDF please go

>>217023
>this was a /pol/ thread from the get-go.
Not even close.
It was a thread about economic history.
Get out.

>>217026
>I'm arguing that economics is a social science, not philosophy.
Then why are you doing nothing but talk about philosophy in this thread?

Why don't you talk about economics instead?
Oh wait, the fact you're wrong angers you.

>That's unfortunate, but it's not our job to accommodate your mental deficiencies.
You're doing everything in your power to make people forget the fact you have no argument against OPs post.
You will NEVER reply. It just makes you madder and madder.
Enjoy your psychological problems.
>HURR SOSHIL DAWRWINIST
Lol you really have no idea what you're talking about.

>But it is not a substitute for real economics.
It is real economics, just because you cannot refute it and austrian economics has been right time and time again doesn't mean you get to angrily lie about it you manchild.

>Which is fine, but useless to us as scientists.
Which means YOU should LEAVE
as you admit you don't even believe in economics.
If you want science you should go to /sci/.
If you want economics, stay here.

>it's clear that you are the maddest person in this thread
LOL
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO MY POST

HOLY FUCK LOL

SEEK HELP

>>217026
Never in my life have I seen someone this mad.

The facts are right in front of his face and he continues to ignore them

The amount of cognitive dissonance is incredible.

He knows he has no argument and yet continues to shitpost and not talk about economic history which is what this fucking thread is about.

>>217040
>Then why are you doing nothing but talk about philosophy in this thread?
You're the one who has been talking about philosophy. I've just been trying to redirect to a more appropriate avenue.

>It is real economics, just because you cannot refute it and austrian economics has been right time and time again doesn't mean you get to angrily lie about it you
That isn't how logic works at all. Being right "time and time" does not constitute proof in logic. Maybe if you believed in science (rather than philosophy), being right would actually support your viewpoints. Too bad.

>>217045
>Never in my life have I seen someone this mad.
What on Earth led you to think that I or anyone else in this thread (other than yourself) is mad? You're amusing, like watching a child go on a rampage in a supermarket. I have nothing to be mad about because you are providing me with entertainment.

>>217055
>You're the one who has been talking about philosophy.
You are talking about philosophy right now.
"is Austrian economics economics"
Is a philosophical question.

>I've just been trying to redirect to a more appropriate avenue.
What like AGAINST what the fucking THREAD and this BOARD is about?
ie. ECONOMICS and ECONOMIC HISTORY.

If you don't want to discuss economics, then stop fucking shitposting.

We're trying to talk about the economic history of the great depression here.

Get out of this thread.

>Being right "time and time" does not constitute proof in logic.
I never once said it did, you child.

>What on Earth led you to think that I or anyone else in this thread (other than yourself) is mad?
Because you're going out of your way to derail the thread because you know it's going to hurt you in the end due to the end you're wrong about the great depression.

WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT FAGGOT?

WHERE THE FUCK IS IT?

>like watching a child go on a rampage in a supermarket.
Yes the countless shitposts and lack of an argument by you really show that. Lol enjoy your projection.

>I have nothing to be mad about because you are providing me with entertainment.
Yes I can see that. Your lack of an argument and projection really show that.

Look at you for fuck sakes lol

>>216696
>believing the work week is tied to economic production
my sides

>>217055
>I-I d-don't need an argument.

Yes, actually you do.

If you don't have an argument and want to call names instead then you're a child and need to go back to /b/.

>>217092
>>believing the work week is tied to economic production
Does this chart anger you?

Oh well, I'm going out to eat now.

Whatever,

Maybe next time we can discuss the economics of the great depression.

Stay mad "you're not REEAAAL economics because it proves my theoires wrong" guy.

lel

>>217023

its ok, he'll get banned if you press report enough

>>216779

>Why would I force myself to be brainwashed by a bunch of corrupt statists with an agenda?

OP confirmed for uneducated tinfoil hatter.

>>>/pol/

I'm pretty sure the key problem in the depression was deflation and declining prices and wages.

Also, the depression was resolved by government spending. Mostly due to the world war and all the government spending into weapons of war.

Also the GI bill seemed to increase the standard of living because it gave free college educations to all those soldiers including my grandpa who had a great career as a dentist and supported a family of 8 coming from poverty before the war.

Or are you going to say the 1950's economic boom was not related to government spending.

I mean if government spending was bad then the 1950's should have been shit with all that highway expansions, public works, and high taxes.

>>>/biz/
>It's this easy to troll

>>217109
Get off /biz/ libtard

>>21740
>if you don't believe everything your government tells you word for wood then you're a conspiracy theorist
>STOP INSULTING MY CULT LEADER
God damn statists. How in the fuck are you able to function in day to day life?

>>217151
Bottom response to
>>217140

>>216873

>Does MATH replace the scientific method?

Holy shit uneducated pleb detected. Math IS part of the scientific method.

Austrian economics is completely devoid of math.

>>217159
>Math IS part of the scientific method.
It's a tool science USES, faggot.
Math itself does not use science.
holy shit

>Austrian economics is completely devoid of math.
No it's not we use plenty of math but only where it actually makes sense to use it.

Kill yourself.

>>216696

OP, I think the lack of discussion here could be remedied if you pointed out the economic principles behind your assertions. As it stands 'Would haves' are hard to argue against due to the fact the logic behind such conclusions has not been explicit.

Not everyone here has knowledge of the Austrian School, which is why people tend to be confused when such assertions are made, I believe.

As it stands, it's rather unfortunate, but not at all unpredictable, that the thread seems to have devolved into uncharitable readings of one-another's imagined positions.

Heads up y'all, this is the same retard who's been posting Austrian "economics" tripe over at

>>216345
>>211430

You can tell its the same autistic pleb by the way he writes like a manchild and how he ignores logic, facts and statistics because muh praxeology. He's been BTFO of these threads by both Keynesians and Chicago school anons and doesn't really wanna admit it.

Please ignore, sage, call the cops and inform your loved ones.

>>217202
holy shit you're right

>>217175

>It's a tool science USES.
>Math IS part of the scientific method

Yeah, exactly.

>No it's not we use plenty of math but only where it actually makes sense to use it.

Cool, name me some Austrian mathematical models please.

>>216752
>He's been BTFO of these threads by both Keynesians
Lol then why are the other posters BTFO and then stopped posting?

Do you have ANY argument?

This entire board is loaded with posters who understand Austrian economics.
Don't get so mad it debunks the bullshit they taught you in school.

Have you not seen the anti-keynesian threads lately?
Protip those weren't my threads neither.

>>217215
Math itself doesn't use the scientific method which was my point you dumb cunt.

>>217249
why are you posting with two different IPs?

>>217243

>Lol then why are the other posters BTFO and then stopped posting?

You stopped posting first, kiddo. Go back to those threads and answer the hordes of questions and queries you conveniently ignored or couldn't find an actual rebuttal to.

>This entire board is loaded with posters who understand Austrian economics.

Yeah that's exactly right, we all understand how retarded Austrian economics is and that's why you got BTFO.

Stop making libertarians look bad. If it weren't for the Austrian school ruining it for monetarists and neoclassicals we'd have a better chance convincing libs and the general populace.

>>217275
I'm on my phone you mongoloid.

>>217383
He's trolling you.
>pls stop anon
>pls

>>217383
>You stopped posting first, kiddo.

Except I didn't, you did what you leftists always do, give up and resort to shitposting.

what about all the heavily leveraged investors ?

>>217480
>what about all the heavily leveraged investors ?
No shit, where did they get there fucking money from?

holy fuck

>>216864
>what are some successful libertarian economies

Hong Kong before the 100 year lease expired and it reverted back to China: 28% of the population were millionaires and it had 100% employment. Most important: *NO* government intervention anywhere. It was a colony of Great Britain.

>>220019

It was also the biggest trade port in the world and still is. Also, you literally cannot have 100% employment, that is impossible and if you knew anything about NAIRU you'd know 100% employment is very inefficient.

>>220019
I think the moral of the story here is gooks cannot run a functioning country on their own. They need western influence or they revert back to being communist savages. Look at any semi-successful Asian country today. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, you name it. They're only successful because of the West.

1/10. I was going to explain how blatantly wrong this is before I read OP's comments in the thread. S/he is a euphoric neckbeard that's shilling to make anyone with conservative/libertarian views look bad. Go back to your home board, faggot. >>>/mlp/